Home/BlogDecember of 2022 finished the year with a global tropospheric temperature anomaly of +0.05 deg. C above the 1991-2020 average, which was down from the November value of +0.17 deg. C.
The average anomaly for the year was +0.174 deg. C, making 2022 the 7th warmest year of the 44+ year global satellite record, which started in late 1978. Continuing La Nina conditions in the Pacific Ocean have helped to reduce global-average temperatures for the last two years. The 10 warmest years were:
- #1 2016 +0.389
- #2 2020 +0.358
- #3 1998 +0.347
- #4 2019 +0.304
- #5 2017 +0.267
- #6 2010 +0.193
- #7 2022 +0.174
- #8 2021 +0.138
- #9 2015 +0.138
- #10 2018 +0.090
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 continues 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 24 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2021 | Jan | +0.13 | +0.34 | -0.09 | -0.08 | +0.36 | +0.50 | -0.52 |
| 2021 | Feb | +0.20 | +0.32 | +0.08 | -0.14 | -0.65 | +0.07 | -0.27 |
| 2021 | Mar | -0.00 | +0.13 | -0.13 | -0.28 | +0.60 | -0.78 | -0.79 |
| 2021 | Apr | -0.05 | +0.06 | -0.15 | -0.27 | -0.01 | +0.02 | +0.29 |
| 2021 | May | +0.08 | +0.14 | +0.03 | +0.07 | -0.41 | -0.04 | +0.02 |
| 2021 | Jun | -0.01 | +0.31 | -0.32 | -0.14 | +1.44 | +0.64 | -0.76 |
| 2021 | Jul | +0.20 | +0.34 | +0.07 | +0.13 | +0.58 | +0.43 | +0.80 |
| 2021 | Aug | +0.17 | +0.27 | +0.08 | +0.07 | +0.33 | +0.83 | -0.02 |
| 2021 | Sep | +0.26 | +0.19 | +0.33 | +0.09 | +0.67 | +0.02 | +0.37 |
| 2021 | Oct | +0.37 | +0.46 | +0.28 | +0.33 | +0.84 | +0.64 | +0.07 |
| 2021 | Nov | +0.09 | +0.12 | +0.06 | +0.14 | +0.50 | -0.42 | -0.29 |
| 2021 | Dec | +0.21 | +0.27 | +0.15 | +0.04 | +1.63 | +0.01 | -0.06 |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.06 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.13 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.02 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.50 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.27 | +0.02 | -0.07 | +0.22 | +0.74 | +0.02 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.26 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.26 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.17 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.59 | +0.23 | +0.19 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.04 | -0.36 | +0.46 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.84 | +0.56 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.32 | +0.24 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.50 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.24 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.04 | +0.16 | +0.93 | +0.04 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.12 | -0.16 | -0.51 | +0.51 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.03 | -0.35 | -0.21 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for December, 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
Let the madness begin
I know the climate is complicated, but they have been telling us that CO2 is the cause of recent warming for a long time, and seem to have a singular focus on this one element. In my view that is ridiculous. But if it were true and the CO2 has gone up every year for 100 years, shouldn’t this be the warmest year on record?
Further if CO2 were a significant,or as it is portrayed the number 1 cause of warming then in the past (millions of years ag0) when CO2 was in the 1000’s ppm we would have never cooled off. Instead we have had several ice ages since.
The lack of basic critical thinking is remarkable. What caused the MAunder minimum? What caused the Roman warming period? Not anthropogenic CO2. That obviously means there are factors that are just dismissed in favor of a CO2 narrative.
The correlation (although not necessarily causation) of sunspots to temperature cycles is clear. I am seriously concerned about Global Cooling, now that is a real problem! But since the CO2 crowd is convinced CO2 is the main driver we can easily fix global cooling by simply burning hydrocarbons and cutting down trees!
“I know the climate is complicated, but they have been telling us that CO2 is the cause of recent warming for a long time, and seem to have a singular focus on this one element. In my view that is ridiculous.
if you find your opponents view ridiculus
chances are you cant read properly
1. CO2 is but one cause. the rest are listed in ipcc reports
2. the focus has not been singular, the marketing did its job by focusing n the one factor we can control
3. your view that X is ridiculous is not an argument. its not even a fact
I just made a comment and then read through your website. I now realize my comment was redundant and preaching to the choir in a sense.
You are my climate hero. Common sense and science in one place. What is sad is I am in awe. What a pathetic state of affairs when a man of (climate) science demonstrate humility and intelligence and that is cause for celebration. I wish you continued success and even made a donation.
I’ll be following from afar.
Take Care,
Curt
Some quick random observations.
Equal 13th warmest December.
Interesting that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer, despite it being below average in the US and UK.
The last 8 years have all been in the top ten warmest years. All but one of the top 20 warmest years have come from the 21st century.
cherry-picking a couple of meaningless trends:
Since September 2014 the trend is flat (The pause grows by 2 months)
Since September 2010 the trend is 0.3C / decade.
Oh, and some commentators on WUWT will still be insisting the uncertainty of the monthly UAH anomaly is +/- 1.4C, so it’s impossible to kn ow if temperatures are rising or falling. And the same commentators will be praising Lord Monckton when he discovers the pause now starts in September 2014.
Looking at the data only 7 of the last ten years have been in the top 10 not 8.
Also using your argument since the change of the reference point the rate of increase over a ten year span has dropped from 0.3 to 0.13 which is a significant drop especially as the models all predict the rate of increase should go up not down.
More to the point certain British Media outlets were predicting doom as this was the second warmest UK year on record, I doubt they will bother publishing the full picture and explain the UKs weather was an anomaly in global terms and this was only the seventh warmest on record and shows a significant drop to some of the previous years.
Cherry picking seems to be a favourite past time for both sides of the debate.
Nup – 8 years
1 2016 0.388
2 2020 0.357
[3 1998 0.348]
4 2019 0.303
5 2017 0.264
[6 2010 0.193]
7 2022 0.174
8 2021 0.138
9 2015 0.135
10 2018 0.088
Only two years from earlier.
“Also using your argument since the change of the reference point the rate of increase over a ten year span has dropped from 0.3 to 0.13 which is a significant drop especially as the models all predict the rate of increase should go up not down.”
No the 0.3 rate of change is over the entire ten years. It’s only when you look over the longer period you get the better estimate of 0.13. It’s too early to say if there has been any change in the rate of warming. Some like to look for short periods of no warming and claim it means warming has paused, but looking at a different starting point you could just as easily claim the rate has accelerated.
“this was the second warmest UK year on record”
It was the warmest, not second warmest. Records tend to be mentioned more than non records because they are more newsworthy. But a single record or lack of a record says very little. It’s the underlying trend trend that I consider more important. The ranking of years is just an indication that temperatures are increasing.
You say only seven of the last ten years have been among the warmest? OK, let us do some simple counting. 2015 is #1, 2016 is #2, 2017 is #3, 2018 is #4, 2019 is #5, 2020 is #6, 2020 is # 7, and 2022 is # 8. Those are the last eight years. Ten years ago would start at 2013. And how many other ten year spans can you find below the average increase per decade? That is called cherry picking, and denialists are very good at that. Simple fact, the last eight years rank in the ten warmest on record, and when the next El Nino hits, Katy bar the door.
Well said Bellman. The fact is that due to the ‘blob’ in the Pacific there’s no telling what the climate may do next. I am in agreement with you that pointing cooling at this point is bogus. It’s way too early to know anything. My prediction is that it will flatline for another decade or two embarrassing the climate community.
I agree with your crystal ball – while a straight trend still amazingly fits, it definitely looks like the temperature graph is leveling off, especially considering the CO2 emissions are ever increasing. That’s not the temperature graph of a climate that linearly dependent on CO2 or one subject to positive feed-backs.
Prior to the last 8 years we had a 17 year pause. We were told the warming that started 8 years ago was going to catch us up and then proceed upward from there.
Nope. Instead, we’ve seen a cooling trend take hold that may very well join up with the first pause in the future.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2014.5/trend/plot/uah6/from:2015.5/to/trend/plot/uah6/from:2014.5/to:2015.5/trend
What really happened? In 2014 the PDO went back into its warm phase which combined with the ongoing warm phase of the AMO and led to some short term warming.
The PDO may or may not have returned back into a cool mode and the AMO is due to cycle into its cool mode within a few years. Most likely, we will not warm at all in the next decade except during El Nino events. It will be obvious the warming we did see over the past 30 years was completely natural.
The PDO did NOT go into its warm phase. It’s phase is determined by averages of much longer duration. It simply did what it always does when you have a strong El Nino. The PDO affects ENSO, and ENSO affects the PDO. The PDO has been in its cool mode since the late 90s, with short-lived excursions due to El Nino.
I agree that ENSO and PDO are linked. However, in this case the PDO went up well before (2/2014) any ENSO event got started. In addition, it was during this PDO phase change that cloud thinning detected by CERES occurred.
The PDO was in its warm mode from 1977-2006. It then switched into its cool phase until 2014. We will see where it comes out of the current triple dip La Nina.
The PDO went negative in May 1998, not 2006.
https://psl.noaa.gov/pdo/data/pdo.timeseries.ersstv3b.data
And no – you can’t refer to a 2-3 year excursion into the positives as a positive phase.
The only reason the PDO went negative in 1998 was, as you said earlier, “ENSO affects the PDO”. After the ENSO activity ended the PDO returned to a positive state.
It appears you want the PDO to behave as you want and ignore your own words when they are inconvenient.
Incorrect. The PDO returned to positive only in 2003 and 2005 – two El Nino years. During neutral years it was negative. It seems your final sentence describes you.
2000-12 0.2154
2001-01 0.6658
2001-02 0.3210
2001-03 0.0923
Just wow! You pick the only four positive months in a sea of negatives and claim the PDO was generally positive. You really couldn’t get more deceitful than that, could you.
While there is some chaotic behavior in the PDO and what comprises a positive stage still largely undefined as a cycle. Keep in mind that it is considered to be a multi-decadal indicator thus a climate indicator and influencer.
So depending upon how you set the start and the beginning of a multi-decadal phase of the index is somewhat variable still because it lacks specificity like ENSO of 5 overlapping 3 month seasons.
At a minimum PDO would have to involve multiple seasons much longer in total (at least multi-decadal or 17 years, which would round to multiple decades and as has been defined for climate).
Only after defining that can you specify ‘official’ phases.
We’ll see how much AMO influences global surface temperatures in the near future:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1alycZI-rbKOXsiBKiRDpwI3L1T2LIoPb/view
And this is valid for the LT as well:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iwpr93SyDEb7OWC18JU3cu8AyHphGoLJ/view
*
By the way, using the detrended AMO is one more of these typical manipulations.
The detrended AMO’s only useful purpose is to show that inside of the undetrended AMO, there is a cycle.
Actually the undetrended AMO has a cycle too. At least 1.
Thanks for the comparison to GISS. Clearly shows the amount of manipulation in the GISS data.
GISS is not “surface temperature”
It is heavily adjusted urban warming non-data.
spike55 says:
GISS is not ”surface temperature”
It is heavily adjusted urban warming non-data.
———————————
GISS certainly is an outlier. One might attribute that to the James Hansen influence. Having worked for a number of years on large models there are tremendous opportunities for bias to creep in. The number of parameters in these large models is huge and huge swings in outcome of the models can be produced by simply mildly aggressively selecting parameter values within the range of uncertainty allowing for totally unconscious bias to creep in.
I respect James Hansen as an intelligent researcher and a man of integrity but believe his passions lead him to outputs that may well be beyond the pale. But its difficult to criticize him because he doesn’t go outside of the envelope and there is a statistical possibility he could be right. This isn’t Hansen’s fault. Its just the way it is with big models, especially models that can’t replicate the past. Ignorance can be cured by it takes primary research.
On the same vein but from a different perspective. All the surface records are outside of the control of the civil service. Huge amounts of data are provided by authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China that would love to sow disinformation to discombobulate the West. There is that risk to. Just another reason I prefer satellite temperature measurements.
Because the AMO has narrow-band cycles longer than the duration of the satellite record, the fitting of a linear trend to the latter is an exercise of unintelligent junk science.
Because the AMO has narrow-band cycles longer than the satellite record, fitting a linear trend to the latter is merely an arbitrary exercise of junk science. Global temperature variation is not a simple noise process.
” Actually the undetrended AMO has a cycle too. At least 1. ”
As usual, Blindsley Hood replies dumb and irrelevant things.
1. It is absolutely evident that the undetrended AMO contains a cycle, you idiot. If it didn’t, the detrended AMO wouldn’t too.
2. What I said is that you can’t compare detrended data to data containing a trend; you have to detrend that data too, Blindsley Hood.
Richard M
” Thanks for the comparison to GISS. Clearly shows the amount of manipulation in the GISS data. ”
Typical stoopid comment made by a polemicist.
Why don’t you write about the amount of manipulation in Had-CRUT?
Would you like to see the data processed by Japan’s Met Agency and then say also ‘ Clearly shows the amount of manipulation in the JMA data’, genius Richard M?
sky
” Because the AMO has narrow-band cycles longer than the satellite record, fitting a linear trend to the latter is merely an arbitrary exercise of junk science. Global temperature variation is not a simple noise process. ”
Why don’t you use your brain and compare the two graphs I posted, sky?
GISS is not an outlier.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1428121
Sure they are Nate. There are a lot of outlier datasets that have very poor controls over the collection and submission of data. If you want to bundle them all up as a common problem. . . .you would probably be just about right on the mark.
What a trivial manipulation!
You start your trend periods with the highest values, hence the trends over them can’t be positive.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1999/to/plot/uah6/from:1999/to:2017/trend/plot/uah6/from:2017/to/trend
Still cooler now than in 2016.
Are you going to continue to compare ONI -1 to ONI +2.5 ?
Actually, I use natural cycles as the starting points of my trends. The goal is to discover if the cycles have any influence. The result shows the influence is very strong. You don’t like it because of that.
1997 was when the AMO completed its phase change. 2014 was when the PDO changed and CERES saw a period of cloud thinning. This tells us the true story of climate change.
“My” trends … interesting Freudian slip.
When do you think you might address my most recent comment about 1998 vs 2006?
“My trends” means my graph. Are you always this irrational?
Coolistas are all snuggled in bed with visions of imminent glaciation dancing in their heads…
Worth remembering that +0.05C today would have been +0.17C when the 1981-2010 base period was being used.
Well, let’s compare global sea surface anomalies to the 1981-2010 average.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Yeah it’s funny how La Nina will do that.
You mean sea surface temperatures have been between 0.2 and 0.1C warmer than they where a couple of decades ago?
The SSTs jumped up when CERES detected an increase in absorbed solar energy. No one should be surprised and it doesn’t support any kind of AGW claims.
Could someone link to where that data (not just that graph) is sourced, or, perhaps shown with a longer-back timescale than just three months?
Ren doesn’t believe in sourcing his graphs.
Sren F
Most SST data going up to ‘right now’ is in NetCDF format (.nc files).
The best monthly SST data available in text form is HadISST (SST + sea ice):
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
This is a 1 degree data set.
It has currently data till Oct 2022.
*
Here is a comparison of HadISST1 SST to UAH 6.0 ocean for Jan 1979 – Oct 2022:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lYv80u2gnI1FC-5Byc4eYkeDJ5QMaffs/view
The linear estimates for that period, in C / decade:
– Had: 0.10 +- 0.003
– UAH: 0.12 +- 0.006
I see, thanks! And those actual CDAS-data linked to as graphed above (.nc supposedly)?
Sren F you would be best to ask Levi. He usually answers emails quite quickly.
levicowan@tropicaltidbits.com
Indeed, I did and experienced that some years ago, thinking I’d dive into it later/now, but then a backup harddisk with the mail-response turned unresponsive. Too embarrased to ask again, but guess anybody could always encourage Levi to just provide it at the tidbits-site itself.
I hope it doesn’t cool down, even as I think, based on cyclical climate trends, the next decade will have a cooling trend.
The only reason for wanting the anomaly to go down is to shut up the global warming activism that is bent on taking away access to cheap reliable plentiful energy from fossil fuel.
Otherwise, as shown with Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods, humans flourish when it is warm.
Humans didnt flourish after Medieval times??
Did he say that Nate? I think it can be implied that the reason he hopes it doesn’t cool down is we are in the best of times of the last 40 generations. . . .which happens to take one back to the Medieval times.
His claim that humans flourish only when it is warmer is not supported.
The Renaissance, the Age of Elightenment, and the start of the Industrial Revolution occurred during the cooler LIA period.
this is a regional phenomena and it primarily is a reflection of war booty and an elite class that dedicated itself to learning. They probably had student draft deferments in place at the time.
To say it was a reflection of the plight of the less fortunate may be an over reach. What evidence do you have of that? the so-called Islamic Golden Age is regarded to be the 8th to 14th centuries before Europe started winning the wars and the beginnings of colonial expansion. Warfare and expansionist policies are spurred by shortages of resources.
Of course these are Eurocentric trends. Our knowledge of the LIA effects are also quite Eurocentric.
Not according to Akasofu’s work that links in eastern Asia as well which also has written records of climate indicators.
He’s your guru then?
Guru? You believe in those things?
No his paper is well documented much to the chagrin of the noise from the peanut gallery.
Lets be honest, it is not because his work is better than all others.
His opinion is an outlier in climate science. Thus you think he is has it right, while ignoring the much larger body of published work that disagrees with his opinion.
Nate you don’t understand science.\
Science cannot prove the LIA was non-existent in eastern Asia. Science cannot prove negatives it can only make claims which can be shown to be no supportable.
So when Aksasofu put together a dataset of variation of the freeze dates and melt dates he showed a significant change of climate to a cooler state in time with the LIA. All one can do about that is ignore it. Is ignoring observations what you think science is comprised of?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1429853
Nate says from his link: ”It is an exponential recovery to equilibrium, and lasts a few years at most.”
—————————
Thats pretty ignorant of you. The Maunder Minimum lasted 70 years and so did the recovery seen in instrument records of the day.
Tambora may not have registered either way as the Dalton Minimum nadir preceded Tambora and recovered in about as much time as it took to fall.
The industrial revolution has resulted in about 1 degree warming in 150 years. And we have 1 degree warming supposedly in the bank due to claims it is from CO2 or some kind of solar grand maximum depending upon who you ask.
The question I have is the 1 degree in the bank or did we just spend it? What I figure though is if we just spent it will will take, in the absence of other factors a 150 years of cooling to lose it if this is an 800 year or so cycle.
What I do know is the 1 degree that is supposedly ”in the bank” doesn’t come from observation but comes from theory. A theory built on the back of observation actually not corresponding to theory since the theory was first made into a prediction. We came up with a new theory for that! Deep ocean warming. Previously ocean warming was only considered to take 7 to 10 years in the original models. No bones about that. It was acknowledged as an uncertainty. Today lots of stuff is acknowledged as uncertainty. A ready made literal bag full of excuses for dire predictions like if we don’t act in ten years it will be too late. These excuses will certainly be coming out of the bag as we move forward and they will say: Yeah we acknowledged that as an uncertainty as they move the doomsday clock forward another 10 years.
Heck Erhlich is still pounding the drum for his theory that failed 45 years ago. He will do that until he is in the grave. He built his life on it! https://earth.stanford.edu/news/science-behind-extinction
They all see a future. Like how Arrhenius rose from the grave!
“Maunder Minimum lasted 70 years and so did the recovery seen in instrument records of the day.”
Oh? Show us that.
Check the CET
Ur dreamin. If the data don’t fit your belief just imagine it..
“The question I have is the 1 degree in the bank or did we just spend it?”
Who knows where you are going with this off topic gobbledegook.
Nate with no argument resorts to obfuscation again.
Made already.
Literally nothing out of the ordinary is happening at all
I agree. Vacuous remarks are quite mundane.
Nate, no glaciation for thousands of years. However, we may very well have peaked the recovery from the Little Ice Age and have another 100-200 years of a warmer, more benign climate to enjoy.
You mean the ‘recovery’ from the centuries ago LIA, that accelerated 40 y ago?
Yes, global temperatures accelerated aright in tune with natural cycles and created a small up turn. Yawn.
Which ones are those? And have they produced 1 C warming trends in the past?
Got any thermometer data from the last 10K years? Of course not. You want to compare proxies to thermometers. You realize how stupid that makes you look?
You are the one making the claim that cycles explain current upturn in instrumental record?
“global temperatures accelerated aright in tune with natural cycles and created a small up turn.”
I asked YOU to show me what cycles are those and what amplitude do they have.
Now you call me stupid for asking YOU “to compare proxies to thermometers.”
or to provide anything at all to support your hypothesis.
That is pretty stupid Richard M!
to not be a climate moron one must understand natural climate change.
Yes we know there is a recovery from the LIA and we also know that such recoveries only last as long as natural climate cycles that turn the direction of climate. We also know that climate cycles exist on multiple time scales so it is almost meaningless to say “that accelerated 40 y ago?”
One can say the same thing about the LIA recovery in 1900-1940 it accelerated over 40 years. Climate is always changing at variable rates.
What climate change has not done is reflect a change in lockstep with CO2 emissions because of the acceleration from 1900 to 1940. So it can be conclusively considered there are climate change variables that are NOT due to increasing co2. Figuring out how much that is remains an ongoing project.
“there are climate change variables that are NOT due to increasing co2.”
Yep aerosols, from volcanoes and anthro pollution.
Nate says:
”You mean the recovery from the centuries ago LIA, that accelerated 40 y ago?”
I don’t know about anybody else but no thats not what I mean by that.
We can see natural change occurring on many times scales in the past. In fact the longer you make the time scales the longer the cycles seem to get and the shorter ones disappear due to poor sampling.
As to the acceleration of 40 years goes, it looks a lot like the acceleration seen about 100 years ago. And since the LIA recovery began over 300 years ago all we know is none of the previous warming events were likely due to increasing anthropogenic emissions.
If you actually read Dr. Syun Akasofu’s paper on that you would know that and maybe you wouldn’t be in here ignorantly trying establish unfounded claims about the variability of the drivers of climate change in a feeble and despicable attempt to discredit them.
What qualifies as ‘more benign’?
These?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/27/big-falls-in-crop-yields-across-europe-feared-due-to-heatwaves
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dramatic-nasa-satellite-images-show-lake-mead-water-levels-receded-200-rcna39803
Lake Mead has fallen because of continued over use. Linking to a cherry picked propaganda articles is always humorous. Globally, the trend in crop yields continues to increase.
“Globally, the trend in crop yields continues to increase.”
Uhhh because of many other factors that you cannot disentangle from temperature.
The 2nd link showed that warmth hurt crop yields in Europe.
We know that different crops work well in different climate zones. I don’t see how moving climate zones is a net help to agriculture.
A more logical case can be made that climate stability is good for economic stability.
“Lake Mead has fallen because of continued over use.”
So two decades of the severest Western US drought indicators on record has nothing to do with it, and can be safely ignored?
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/109/pdsi/all/11/1895-2022?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
The most intense droughts in the USA occurred in the thirties, in the dustbowl years
The Dust Bowl was in the Great Plains, not the West. And was human-enabled by agricultural practices which plowed up vast swaths of deep rooted grasses which dried soils and allowed them to blow away.
As usual Nate is in here pounding the table for his favorite constituency to shake a few more dollars loose.
The Palmer Drought Severity Index is another black box model that has a checkered record in its applicability to regions beyond the region it was originally developed for. It works best where all water availability is provided ‘naturally’. For instance if an area has a fast growing population and that population puts stress on man-made facilities that were put in place to encourage development as is the case for the southwestern part of the Country the PDSI would have you believe in in unprecedented drought. . . .which of course satisfies the agendas of special interests.
The West is a story of water shortage and smart water policies that has since the seventies morphed into stupid water policies.
If you want to be informed on this topic one should watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eg0aPRuZu8&t=1174s
Fact is the current drought in the west isn’t much different than previous droughts when measured by stream flows which doesn’t take into account that unlike the region that the PDSI was calculated upon the west has been populated due to smart water policies in the face of drought.
Globally we have been in an LIA recovery now for 300 years. If we look at ice core data we can see that warming occurs a lot faster than cooling. The cooling part of the LIA was closer to 500 years declining from about 1200ad to 1700ad. It is hard to say as all this gets muddled up due to short term cycles in the southwest that is well correlated with ENSO patterns with cool water offshore the west coast being represented by La Ninas bringing temporary drought.
Fortunately advances in science and DNA work is creating a golden age of research into ecologically related fields that are rapidly revealing history and climates of the past.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lost-cities-of-the-amazon-discovered-from-the-air-180980142/
Here it is revealed cities comprised of upward of a million inhabitants living and farming in the Amazon 2000 years ago long before Europeans arriving and declines in the populations in the same time scale as the Anasazi and Vikings in Greenland centuries back precolumbian along with the Amazon not being a rainforest then but instead dominated by large savannahs.
As said by Syun Akasofu a generation ago. . . .to understand climate change one must first understand natural climate change.
” another black box model that has a checkered record”
Bill predictably pontificates piles of BS.
Its not a ‘black box model’ at all. It uses “readily available temperature and precipitation data to estimate relative dryness.”
What was the LIA recovery climate variable Nate?
How about the 1910 – 1940 warming. Do you have a model to show how that warming occurred?
Nice change of subject there. And ???
The available facts are that we have BOTH more water consumers AND unprecedented drought indices out West.
Only one of us is expressing certainty that one of these, the drought factor, can be ignored, as a cause of the dangerously low levels of Lake Meade and Lake Powell,
Nate says:
The available facts are that we have BOTH more water consumers AND unprecedented drought indices out West.
Only one of us is expressing certainty that one of these, the drought factor, can be ignored, as a cause of the dangerously low levels of Lake Meade and Lake Powell,
————————–
We definitely have more water consumers. However, saying we have unprecedented drought is only the case if precipitation has been at record lows and it hasn’t. I would venture that there are places in the world experiencing record droughts but their are traditional definitions of what the southwest is to make in not unprecedented.
Certainly, the drought is severe enough to rival the worst droughts on the very short record of the southwest.
It is also possible to redefine what drought is to claim an unprecedented drought especially when you find the opportunity to put modeled data in as measured data. Like they do with all the surface temperature records.
It would also be possible to redefine what the southwest is by changing its boundaries or exporting water over a watershed divide which is another thing we do.
One might even be able to move stream flow measuring equipment around to moderately change the results.
Its like adjusting one weather station by another when both have been moved and changed their equipment.
In the case of managing longterm data sets it is incredibly difficult to assure quality as standards are always changing when standards exist at all. Thats the big problem with academia doing the science as they obey no standards. And fraud and intent isn’t necessary. Folks are all the time striving for better standards but one seldom knows which way that pushes the data.
So simple examples are the best way to judge change in long range data. Do it the way they did it previously. Even that is difficult the folks measuring sunspots actually have two systems. One deemed the most accurate and another deemed the most consistent. . . .and they aren’t even sure how consistent absolutely the most consistent one.
So while you do cartwheels over the indexes yo daddy pushes your direction. I am an auditor and experienced in these matters so I look at little deeper.
What I am focusing on is stream flows of the Colorado watershed stream flows above Lake Powell despite some of those stream flows being sent over the watershed divide in Colorado and perhaps Utah as well.
These are extremely low rivaling the lowest readings on record. But not good enough to proclaim as unprecedented to satisfy your policy agenda. Auditors actually have such declarations removed on a regular basis by those with policy agenda which is the institution that we happen to be auditing. If they want it in there they will have to prove it is true beyond a reasonable doubt or they will earn themselves a qualified opinion.
So I am in here for the fun of it doing it to you.
With regards to the validity of the PDSI its an interesting index but it has not been widely accepted as being accurate without full test of the system for every watershed or region in which it is employed. Short of demonstrating accuracy repeatedly at a minimum each important parameter needs validation and I doubt you can find any kind of examination of that. . . .or at a minimum I haven’t found one.
Thats again a lot of pontification.
But no matter, its abundantly clear that you choose to ignore the drought data because it doesnt fit your political narrative.
Well yeah the only political narrative I have is that before you regulate me have a plan, have an achievable objective, and provide evidence that when done with the plan and the objective achieved it makes us all better off, and above all maintain 100% transparency through the entire process. Gangs of scientists, bureaucrats, and social media providers attacking the other side should be illegal.
That rules out absolute power to make 5-year plans.
And it didn’t go unnoticed that you didn’t address a single point I made.
“you didnt address a single point I made.”
False
“Its not a black box model at all. It uses ‘readily available temperature and precipitation data to estimate relative dryness.'”
Nate, reliable science says that the last century has been unusually wet in the west. Dryer weather is a return to normal. Climate does change all by itself, and that fact cannot be separated from the various claims made about climate change.
Nate says:
”Its not a black box model at all. It uses readily available temperature and precipitation data to estimate relative dryness.”
Sure it is. It might not be in the midwest plains states where it was created where farms dominate the landscape. But temperatures, humidity changes, and precipitation would have to modeled (and they are black box models) for the southwest as there are vast areas of the Colorado River watershed that is completely undeveloped and 100 years ago had practically no population.
And in a 100 years CO2 has increased by almost 40%. Doubled CO2 is estimated at 1 degree from CO2 and 2 degrees from watervapor.
Further water vapor accounts for around 60% of the greenhouse effect. So water vapor would have to increase at a rate faster than CO2 to keep up. Do you think an increase in water vapor of 50% would have some effect on soil moisture content? Do you have the code and calculations and data for the southwest over the past 100 years. If you don’t it is a black box model. Plus for the southwest you have to consider anthropogenic water vapor that doesn’t come from emissions but comes from cities and agriculture. The agriculture and cities would not be there but for the dumping of the entire colorado river water shed into and over the crops and cities.
“temperatures, humidity changes, and precipitation would have to modeled”
More creative writing to support your political biases.
All three of these are OBSERVABLES.
Tim S,
“Dryer weather is a return to normal.”
Possibly so.
But the T rise is beyond the normal of last few millenia. And T rise, with no other change, leads to drying.
40 y ago, models and paleo evidence showed that the Western US would become drier, and more drought prone, with the predicted GW to come.
Thus far, the GW has happened and the drying Western US has happened.
Lets see going forward.
Nate, you have confused your political talking points and misstated the science. All hysterical claims about climate, center around a warmer earth holding more water in the atmosphere. Instead of revealing the real cause for predictions about more rain (if true), which is a colder upper atmosphere, they blame a warmer and wetter surface. Which is it?
Tim S says:
Nate, reliable science says that the last century has been unusually wet in the west. Dryer weather is a return to normal. Climate does change all by itself, and that fact cannot be separated from the various claims made about climate change.
————————–
Correct. Hopefully its only a return to the 1930’s and is temporary. Drought since the 1930’s was successfully mitigated by building water infrastructure and limiting loss of fresh water to the ocean.
There are impacts from that. The ecosystem damage at the mouth of the Colorado River in Mexico is extensive. Problems have occurred on the Klamath River where Klamath River water diverted to southern Oregon farmers results in poor flows for salmon at the mouth of the river and fewer salmon in the upper reaches of the river.
In my view politics is taking the wrong approach. They now are planning on taking down the Klamath river dams. What they need to do is build more and better infrastructure as still huge amounts of water are unnecessarily lost to the ocean during storms.
What we have accomplished is amazing. The mistakes largely pale in comparison. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t work to correct mistakes. We constantly need to find better ways to do it. But not putting the civil service in charge of finding those answers drains the pool of money and throws the debate into the ‘every cat for himself’ room where special interests dominate. . . .and a lot of them have a C3 in their corporate designation.
Bill says:
”As said by Syun Akasofu a generation ago. . . .to understand climate change one must first understand natural climate change.”
Nate replies:
” another black box model that has a checkered record”
Bill predictably pontificates piles of BS.
———————————
Nate sees no need to understand natural climate change so he focuses on trying dispute the lack of transparency of the real states of science.
Climate science is not ignoring natural climate change. That is just another denialist meme.
Stop lying Nate. I didn’t say climate science was ignoring natural climate change. I said: Climate science needs to understand natural climate change in order to understand anthropogenic climate change.
The models still do not replicate the past climate. Until they do they are not correctly treating natural climate change and thus they are not properly predicting future climate.
“All hysterical claims about climate, center around a warmer earth holding more water in the atmosphere”
True that a warmer atmosphere holds more water. But the Earths deserts are generated by its general circulation pattern, which creates high pressure latitude zones. This general circulation is driven by tropical latent heat and convection. The desertification effect could be enhanced in a warmer world.
The Earth is not so simple.
Nobody said it was simple Nate. The call is for better and more research into these issues so that models can accurately replicate the past and predict the future. And from a political perspective, the civil service needs to be reinstated as the gate keeper and fund and approve such work based upon a body of standards that strives to only allow work that is openly reviewable by the public in a process that is 100% transparent to the public.
In that vein its my opinion the civil service had it right originally whereby the sun had been the primary variable in climate change. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have UHI messing with output, or authoritarian (Russian/Chinese) disinformation campaigns affecting data streams. Nor does it mean that there isn’t some element of climate change that is anthropogenic in nature. Getting to a program that ensure integrity is a program where the folks in charge are independent and face legal consequences for violating the independence standards. That is the civil service model.
In about two weeks the very common short term drought in the US SW appears to have ended. One can only chuckle at the alarmist rhetoric from clueless fools.
California gets it all. Long term record drought and wildfires, then short term record floods.
Apparently these are not mutually exclusive.
Yep that has been the refrain in California since at least when I was about nine years old. In California when it rains, it pours.
Wildfires and floods have been a defining part of California history forever because of the long periods between rainfall and the amount of it when it does fall.
The only thing that has changed is how much human settlement gets in the way. In more modern and fire regulated areas on the outskirts of cities vegetation clearance is more strict than in the forests where the shrubbery is considered to be part of the real estate land value because of its aesthetic values. thus like Australia does today in the outback where wildfire burns everything. That used to be the case in a California of a much smaller population. Now it burns more only because of population increase and backstepping on fire prevention efforts for the purpose of preserving more of those aesthetic values which sells at premium prices in California.
So today we have far fewer fire roads and far fewer controlled burnings of areas of heavy growth. And just like in financial markets where we have private financial institutions to big to fail, we have private utilities too big to fail as litigated responsibilities for fire ignition becomes more hotly pursued. And who ultimately pays the price for that?
“The only thing that has changed is is how much human settlement”
Bill pontificates again.
Wanna bet it doesnt hold water?
Sure enough, the other thing that has changed is the size of fires. 18 of the top 20 largest fires (acreage) have occurred in the last 2 decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_wildfires
Perhaps so. But it has only been in the satellite era where they have consistently measured such stuff. Historically major forest fires weren’t even fought much less measured. Today with satellites one might even be able to go through archives and perhaps find measured but unfought fires that never got measured, except that by the time satellites were recording this stuff visually the population of the west was huge.
The size of fires in my earliest memories having lived in a wild area with extensive fire prevention/size limitation practices already in place in the 1950’s did a whole lot to contain fires. I watched several of these fires as a youth and noted that without exception fires were stopped at fire roads that demarked strategic fire fighting positions and/or the edges of controlled burns.
Those practices began to relax in the 70’s for the reasons I stated above. So don’t be an idiot and just simply believe that todays datasets are in any way comparable over many decades because they clearly are not. But it is well accepted in California that some amount of the extent of wild fires are a direct result of the relaxation of fire prevention practices of earlier decades.
Bill always finds some excuse to ignore inconvenient data. Here its boyhood memories.
Yep living in a chaparral forest next to the coast for the first two decades of my life you learn nothing about what is going on in the forest.
But thats not the real problem with Nate its his selective use of alarmist literature that has no basis in fact. He looks at a list of the largest recorded fires and starts immediately extrapolating stuff from that list without even giving a thought to why what he observed is what he observed. . . .he already know before he looked.
Same problem exists with a lot of politicized and politically motivated datasets. But Nate has never found one. To him they are all pristine and perfectly adequate for him to start drawing conclusions about them. Comes a long a person who lived it and who can remember asking his Grandma why is the mountain behind his home have so many white lines on it. Can’t remember exactly my age but it was around 3rd grade. She told me they were fire roads that the firemen had put in to provide fire breaks and access for fire trucks to fight the fires. Those lines are not on that mountain today.
But all Nate has to do is pickup some literature on this matter and actually do something himself to validate his conclusions from the list he made. But he is too lazy to do that.
There are literally thousands of sources on the internet that explain why and how fire suppression policies have changed over the decades.
From my perspective during the satellite era the west coast was dominated by El Nino in the first two decades. La Nina has dominated over the two subsequent decades. La Nina is strongly associated in California with drought and a lack of rainfall, whereas El Nino the opposite. La Nina also dominated the 60’s and 70’s.
As a college scientist student in the 60’s I conducted numerous field trips into SoCal chaparral forests as I had gravitated toward the natural sciences. Some of the classroom instruction materials were indicating that ecological studies were indicating that fire is a necessary natural ecological tool for the maintenance of the health of these forests. So we made field trips into areas that had not been burnt for decades due to fire suppression efforts and multiple trips into burnt areas at different time intervals after a burn.
What we learned from all this is yes there is a burn/grow natural cycle. Plants that emerge after a burn are different species than before the burn. Apparently the seeds of this post burn growth hibernates for years awaiting its opportunity to emerge. The cycle is apparently caused by the massive overgrowth of certain species of the chaparral forest that shades the post fire species such that perhaps they never experience the surface temperature on the soil necessary to sprout after the over growth reaches a certain thickness.
IMO, in terms of the beauty of the chaparral ecosystem, nothing surpasses that of a spring field trip after a late summer or fall fire, and a wet winter. the variety of plants with good populations is far higher than in the mature forest and likely they are all flowering in the spring. But as the years roll forward the variety diminishes. . . .until the next fire.
This fact and its documentation changed management, according to sources pretty much throughout the western US. Controlled burns were substituted for fire suppression. But that became political as sometimes they would lose control. So over the years agencies burnt less and implemented extensive standards to allow controlled burns which had the expected result, fewer burns.
Also the fire roads slowly disappeared getting over grown themselves. This might be a product of the El Nino years where we had less drought. I don’t know for sure.
Nate says:
”Coolistas are all snuggled in bed with visions of imminent glaciation dancing in their heads”
Well depends upon what you want to call imminent glaciation. Last interglacial took over 100,000 years to descend to the bottom. If thats 12C. That works out to about .0012 degrees per decade.
What you have to do before that is flatten out those 800 year variations in precipitation patterns that resulted in an increase in glaciation that last started about 800 years ago.
Heck having major crop failures from cooling was last experienced frequently as little as 45-50 years ago. Obviously scientists were very worried about that. We have been fortunate over the past several decades. One can only hope it continues as 800 years ago the native Americans in the southwest were undergoing extremely hard times bringing the technology advanced Anasazi culture crashing down.
“crop failures from cooling”
And crop failures from excess warmth, as discussed above.
“Wheat grows best when the temperatures are warm, around from 21 to 24 C/ 70 to 75 F, but are not too hot.”
The issue is when there is a disruption of normal climate for a given region.
You are so gullible Nate.
You are looking at yield changes of 2% against a 5 year average and some predictions of less than a 10% variation against that same short term average. This is not a crop failure its normal crop variation. The primary driver is lack of irrigation water as plants that don’t get watered dry out faster the warmer it is. Heat stress is a need for more water condition. that doesn’t happen due to global warming it happens when you have fewer clouds. The more water vapor in the sky the less heat stress.
Freezes kill off crops to levels exceeding 50% and bankrupt farmers.
Check out this report that talks about record harvests in Europe with virtually all of them occurring in the past decade. You come in here posting pablum for idiots. . . .which makes you an idiot.
https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/cropexplorer/pecad_stories.aspx?regionid=europe&ftype=prodbriefs
Also one should watch this video to learn something about politics surrounding water availability policy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eg0aPRuZu8&t=1174s
Bottom line is that California has always had a water crisis and it has historically not been an issue because of smart water policies and limiting massive losses of fresh storm water just running off into the ocean.
Water storage programs limit flood damage, provide more level supplies of water for growing populations, provide cheap electricity that has paid for the water policies in California, and provided extensive recreational opportunities.
Today Californians are faced with extensive resistance to projects that would ensure more water availability. Excess environmentalism obstructs these projects limiting clean power generation, desalination projects, and new water storage facilities to serve the increasing population.
First two:
“Nov 9 2022 | Hungary Corn: Extreme Weather Reduces Production to Lowest Level in 54 Years
Oct 12 2022 | European Union Corn: Smallest Crop in 15 Years”
agree with what I posted above.
My point was simply that excess heat also can be BAD for agriculture.
Re: water in the West.
So two decades of the severest Western US drought indicators on record has nothing to do with it, and can be safely ignored?
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/109/pdsi/all/11/1895-2022?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
The PDSI is an insufficient indicator of drought for the southwest.
The problem is it includes water storage. For the location it was developed there is very little man made water infrastructure. In the region it was developed you had abundant year round streams and fluctuations in water storage is far less impactful where water is generally not drawn from storage. In the southwest we only have the populations we have because of manmade water infrastructure that needs to keep up with population levels.
Yes we are having drought in the southwest. Its just not unprecedented. If you want to use a drought index to pound the drum for climate change the only index that makes sense to use is a global index.
If you look here for the region in which the PDSI was developed
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/105/pdsi/all/11/1895-2022?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
You will see droughts but the worst drought still was in the 1930’s
I don’t know if the ‘dust’ of the ‘dust bowl’ was due to unsustainable farming practices or not, but that had no effect on the fact a major record setting drought as far as the PDSI is concerned was present.
“The PDSI is an insufficient indicator of drought for the southwest.
The problem is it includes water storage. For the location it was developed there is very little man made water infrastructure. In the region it was developed you had abundant year round streams and fluctuations in water storage is far less impactful where water is generally not drawn from storage. ”
Source of this auditor’s pointification?
Look it up Nate. I gave you the sources several months ago when we last discussed this before you ignored it again and started using it again without any disclaimers.
And most record temperature for the region are still in the 1930’s so its not soil moisture either.
“I gave you the sources several months ago when we last discussed this ”
Your recall of facts is demonstrably faulty, Bill. So you just go with stream of consciousness pontification.
“And most record temperature for the region are still in the 1930s so its not soil moisture either.”
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/109/tavg/24/11/1895-2022?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
Yet another in a long line of Bill posts that fail a fact check.
This is why you are such a moron Nate. Somebody hands you a complex model and instantly you accept it because the results support your political agenda if you have one or you believe it because its important what the perception of social media is of the quality of your virtue signaling.
And your response did not address anything I said except provide a link to a poorly vetted index not developed for the western region but is popular because it suits political agendas and provides abundant opportunities for virtue signalers preening their image on social media.
1) The model does not refute record temperatures.
2) By far most of the west region is the most documented regarding mean temperatures a century ago because it was the last region to have agriculture and population growth. In fact until recently it was cooling in the US.
3) There isn’t any validation of any part of the PDSI specific to the west region. Of what validation would be needed soil moisture is the most sparse in available data from a century ago.
I am all for something like this index to measure stuff in the satellite era. The big problem with these indexes is there is an irresistible urge to improve them so they lose their long term accuracy which is probably the very worst for periods prior to the indexes development because measurement standards are ever changing as well, UHI as but one example. If you are going to use GIS to attribute means to unsampled areas you need to make sure the usage hasn’t changed.
“Somebody hands you a complex model and instantly you accept it because the results support your political agenda ”
On the contrary Bill, the evidence is clear and consistent that when someone shows you DATA, such as this, you instantly reject it if it doesnt support your political agenda.
Yes my political agenda is for the public. I don’t have personal agendas, nor agendas for elitist clubs or anything like that.
So when handed a dataset I don’t reject it. But the auditor hound in my wants to know what the data really represents. I want to know how it was collected. Is it random data. Is it representative data. is it an adequate sample.
And if it contains ‘modeled’ data I want to know the parameters of the model and how the values were arrived at.
I do a lot of public service work both for C3 clients and as a volunteer. I have made a difference. One of my primary objectives are for transparency for all the factors listed above. The government resists greatly because they know their datasets are far from perfect. That raises the questions if they are adequate as nothing is perfect. Hell that is what I was trained to do when I first became an auditor.
I have been the instigator of improvements in a number of datasets embarked upon because of the obvious inferiority of them and money wasted in doing something poorly and continuing to pay to do it poorly.
So don’t give me shit about having a political agenda. I have one but it is the right one.
You OTOH just defend the datasets and models you like and clearly demonstrate to me you have no reasonable basis for doing so beyond your loyalty to authority and perhaps other albiet unspoken for biases. Auditors seldom run into the problem when audits are required as such stonewalling bespeaks to an agenda that is not in the best interest of the public and auditees pay dearly for that resistance as auditors charge by the hour.
“You are looking at yield changes of 2% against a 5 year average and some predictions of less than a 10% variation against that same short term average.”
Nope, I am not. Where do you get such an idea?
Your own source dummy! Don’t you read your own sources? This is the second time in for this monthly report.
”Cereal yields are down about 2% overall, compared with the five-year average, though a handful of crops such as sugar beet and potatoes are doing better than average.”
also it says up to 9% as a prediction for certain crops that haven’t yet been realized.
OK fine. 9% for corn and soybeans. Makes the point that warmer is not necessarily better.
And:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1424576
You cannot possibly be claiming that GW is preventing freezes, (Texas just froze!) and which are in any case, a minor concern for most major crops, other than occasionally oranges in Florida.
Nate, agricultural production over time is an intelligent adaptive process. You and the morons that threaten impending doom don’t include the intelligence/adaptive variables of crop selection and planting time strategies and assume that the folks making the predictions do the strategy and don’t react to climate change.
Thus longterm slow climate change has no impact whatsoever on agricultural production because the farmers adapt.
What has an impact are unexpected and sudden changes in weather. The greenhouse effect by its very nature limits these by providing less extreme temperatures. Compare the extreme temperatures of the moon to the earth. No comparison whatsoever in extreme temperatures and the earth’s extreme temperatures are by far milder than the moon. . . .because of the greenhouse effect. Anybody that buys the garbage you spew is an idiot.
Thats number one.
Number two is high temperatures only ‘stress’ plants. Freezes ‘kills’ them. And having more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reduces stress. Thats why greenhouse farmers supplement CO2 in their grow houses. It reduces their need for water which is the root of the primary stress that comes from warm temperatures.
Finally drought is associated with cool temperatures not warm temperatures. The Anasazi culture is believed to have been destroyed by the drought associated with the LIA. Quite likely also the Amazonian Mayans and of course the Greenland Vikings.
Which culture was destroyed by warming Nate?
“Thus longterm slow climate change has no impact whatsoever on agricultural production because the farmers adapt.”
Sounds like we mostly are in agreement on that.
“https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1423134
However small countries who cannot move their boundaries could suffer if the agricultural basis of their economy is disrupted.
Nate says:
”However small countries who cannot move their boundaries could suffer if the agricultural basis of their economy is disrupted.”
——————————-
Farmers don’t generally adapt by moving. They aren’t locked in a super narrow specialty like yours of only being able to flip hamburgers. ROTFLMAO! Is that all you can think of. . . .what yo daddy told you?
Ok, so once again you convey excessive certainty that just so happens to fit your political narrative in yet another area outside your expertise.
I told you I was an environmental consultant. I work in a lot of fields. . . .literally. Don’t do much farm work but use farm paradigms almost daily because it is so much more advanced than with other natural systems.
Farmers generally don’t move because they would have to sell their lands, move all their equipment, and rebuild many structures. They do many things though. The rotate crops, plan for multiple harvests, change crops, and work hard to estimate when to plant and when it harvest. Its one of the most adaptable businesses in the world. . . .without worrying about where the border is.
The US is an exporter with a global market and lots of capital. Not so in small developing countries with subsistence farming and poverty. Are you up on the research on climate effects on agriculture and economies in these countries?
Nate says:
The US is an exporter with a global market and lots of capital. Not so in small developing countries with subsistence farming and poverty. Are you up on the research on climate effects on agriculture and economies in these countries?
————————-
It costs a lot to move or you are going to hungry when you go to a land where you can’t buy land and are likely to end up in an overcrowded refugee camp.
As subsistence farmers they have land where they are. Sometimes they need help and we do that a lot. If you have agricultural skills sign up here. https://www.peacecorps.gov/volunteer/volunteer-openings/agriculture-volunteer-7401br/
I do tons of volunteer work in my areas of experience. Have logged well over 5,000 hours over the past 40 years but have done only a few trips out of country. People and ecosystems need help here too.
“Freezes kill off crops to levels exceeding 50% and bankrupt farmers.”
What freezes? Nobody is talking about freezes!
We are talking about warming of 1 C relative to previous decades.
People are claiming that such warming is better for agriculture.
But as I point out
“Wheat grows best when the temperatures are warm, around from 21 to 24 C/ 70 to 75 F, but are NOT TOO HOT”
Different crops do best in different ranges of conditions.
Why is this difficult to understand?
I am not talking about freezes due to long term climate change. I am talking about freezes that occurred in the US during the years I was coming of age from the 1950’s into the 70’s due to primarily to multidecadal climate change patterns.
Freezes are a minor concern for oranges in Florida. Nobody has been talking about that, they have been arguing that GW is better for agriculture.
We agree on something. We are living in a golden age.
Throughout the southern hemisphere and the tropics, we see negative anomalies in December.
High SOI values indicate that La Nina is continuing at its best.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
La Nina will be over within 3 months.
Noted.
Are you claiming otherwise?
Oh, my
CMIP6.0 computer models projected the global temperature anomaly should be at 1.35C by the end of 2022, but, alas, were at 0.05C.. Whats a CAGW sycophant to do
Thats what, 6 standard deviations devoid fro reality? Not looking good for Lefties..
The CAGW cheerleaders will get a slight reprice with the coming El Nio cycle starting later this year, but the Pacific PDO is already in its 30-year cool cycle and the Atlantic AMO 30-year cool cycle will likely start around 2025 bringing 30+ years of flat or falling global temperature trends, which will substantially reduce the long-term warming trend which CAGW advocates predicted would currently be around 0.30/decade but is only at 0.13C/decade over the past 43 years..
CAGW is so busted.
Now give 3 reasons why your analysis is deliberately deceptive.
Ah the endless smugglers of the absurd that.
Antonio-san:
Its time to call it day on Leftists CAGW scam, which will go down in history as being the biggest and most expensive swindle in world history
Leftists want to insanely and impossibly replace all fossil fuels with wind and solar by 2050, have Leftist government hacks ration all food and energy, and relegate all of Africa to pre-industrialized poverty for the sake of a contrived CAGW scam that isnt happening?
I dont think so
Every CAGW prediction has been wrong: global warming trends, ECS estimates (1.5C not 3.5~5C), sea level rise (just 10 inches by 2100, not 10 feet) , disappearing Arctic sea ice, collapsing Antarctic land ice mass, increasing trends of severe weather events, ocean acidification, etc.
Just give it up. Come up with another Leftist scam.
Hey, why not try catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling like Leftists tried in in the 70s? Just dust off that old chestnut and see if people will fall for that one again
Samuraisan,
You are playing so many squares at the same time that I may as well link to the overall bingo:
https://climateball.net/the-bingo/
Well played!
Why didn’t you answer my question? Can you really not see your deception in comparing +1.35 to +0.05? I really hope for your sake this was deliberate deception.
The first and even second time you argue that you just didn’t understand what were saying. The third time…I have no choice but to accept that this is willful, deliberate, and premediated disinformation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1358821
And your predictions are woefully incorrect. You predicted that the UAH TLT anomaly would drop to -0.4. We are now in the 3rd consecutive La Nina and we are no where close to that.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-664707
My previous prediction of -0.4C was based on a strong La Nina cycle which we havent had since 2010.
Just give up your silly belief in this silly disconfirmed CAGW scam
Its a bust.
im sure Leftists will come up with a new scam to bilk taxpayers of money and steal power because CAGW has become a laughable joke.
Its amazing this hoax has lasted as long as it did, which is a compliment of Leftists guile and mastery of..disinformation
You’re not getting it. CMIP6’s 1700+ month prediction was far more correct than you’re 4 month prediction.
And I think you have me confused with someone else. I’m not a leftist and I certainly don’t support CAGW. I don’t even know what CAGW is because every time I ask I get a different answer. But the general gist I get from contrarians is that it is a theory that posits that everyone should already be dead or will be dead in the next couple of decades which I’ve never supported.
Samurai:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-779097
“By the middle of next year, the double La Nina cooling will cause UAH6.0 to hit -0.3C or even -0.4C.”
No conditional there – it is an unconditional “WILL”.
bdg…”And your predictions are woefully incorrect. You predicted that the UAH TLT anomaly would drop to -0.4. We are now in the 3rd consecutive La Nina and we are no where close to that”.
***
According to you alarmists, the Arctic should be ice free, coastal cities should be under water, and we should be suffering heat wave after heat wave by now.
Alarmists have warned us children would never see snow again, yet this winter in the Vancouver, Canada area was one of the most brutally cold ever. We had more snow here than I have seen for a long time.
People are still digging out from blizzards in the Buffalo, New York region.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I’ve never predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free, that coastal cities would be under water, that children would never see snow again. Not that it matters because even if I had it still doesn’t change the fact that CMIP6’s prediction was not off by 1.3 C as SAMURAI claimed.
BDGWX-san:
You were right, I was wrong Im sorry
I reevaluated the CMIP6.0 model global temp anomaly projections and found the 30-year warming trend from 1992 (.31C) to 2019 (1.31C~latest model run year available) was actually 0.37/decade (1.31C-1.31C)/27 years= .37C/decade)
Accordingly by December 2022 (30 years) CMIP6.0 actually predicted the 2022 global temp anomaly should have been 1.46C (rounding up) and not 1.36C as I previously stated
Extrapolating this out, CMIP6 models predict the global temperature anomaly will be around 4.35C by 2100, which is seriously devoid from reality..
Such extreme CAGW global warming is utterly absurd, but it is great propaganda to scare little kids into believing the earth is about to end, and a fantastic weapon for Leftist governments to use to steal over a $quadrillion replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar, and grabbing control over every aspect of peoples lives to save the world from Warmageddon, but it s all BS.
UAH 6.0 global temperature anomaly data show that since 1979, the warming trend has only been 0.13C/decade, so weve enjoyed about 0.56C of beneficial warming recovery since 1979, and by 2100, the global temperature anomaly may be around 1.57C
I say lets use up as much cheap and abundant fossil fuels as we like, and slowly build a hydro and Thorium MSR energy grid to supply all the cheap power well everneed forever, and continue using fossil fuels to supply all the fertilizers and all the essential petrochemicals we need to build a prosperous, safe, and flourishing world for us and our children
Samurai,
You’ve packed a lot of disinformation into a single post. It would be impressive if it were deliberate.
Barry-san
Its an immutable FACT the laughable CMIP6 computer models show a 30-year warming trend of 0.37C/decade (and increasing in the future) compared to reality, which is 0.13C/decade.
The damn computer models are off by a factor of THREE!
Its like Leftists building bridges wrongly assuming Pi=9.14159 instead the actual 3.14159, which is why Leftists bridges are all falling down.
In Leftist NEWSPEAK, disinformation is any reality they dont like..
“30-year warming trend of 0.37C/decade”
For which period? And which emission scenario are you looking at?
And is this the land surface or lower tropospheric temperatures?
Why are these details missing from a purported critique of the science?
“reality, which is 0.13C/decade”
This is the output of the lowest trend one can find, and is the lower tropospheric temperatures.
You’re comparing apples to oranges, right?
“Leftists”
Not only is your post full of disinformation, you are full of politics.
Which is why there are no details in your ‘critique’ of the science, only soundbytes.
You’re doing politics, Samurai-san.
So let’s pay heed to what the science says.
CMIP6 models projections begin in 2015. The soonest 30-year land-surface trend projections would end in December 2044. And you’re comparing that trend with the UAH lower troposphere trend from 1979 to 2023.
Your Disinformation 1.
OAGCMs can’t predict annual temperatures because they are not designed to predict weather, so your initial comment that CMIP6 projections of surface temps didn’t predict the lower tropospheric temperature in 2022 is not-even-wrong on at least 2 counts.
Your Disinformation 2.
“CAGW advocates predicted would currently be around 0.30/decade”
Setting aside the politicization of the acronym and the apparent waftiness in your trends (0.30? 0.37?), AR5 gave a near-term projection of an increase of 0.3 to 0.7 for the period 2016 to 1935 relative to the period 1986 to 2005. [IPCC AR5 Chapter 11, p. 955]
CMIP6 model results are not expressed in trends but in absolute change.
Your Disinformation 3.
If one were to try to convert that result into a trend, it would be something like 0.17 C/decade (+/- 0.06). Nothing like the 0.37 C/decade figure you gave, which by the way appears nowhere in the IPCC AR6 or AR% chapter on projections.
Your Disinformation 4 and 5.
Would you care to try again with references? Or will you simply admit you’re regurgitating someone else’s ideas without a clue of the underlying facts?
My bet – you’ll double down on the political rhetoric or wisely shut up.
Somebody called it
https://youtu.be/2V3CfD8TPac
It’s happening again.
2010s average: +0.121
Average of three La Nina years of the 2020s: +0.223
Increasingly less heat in the subsurface Pacific. Very far from El Nino.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202301.gif
oof
not many ECS>2 model runs are going to produce a monthly value that low in Dec 2022
even L&C’s 1.7 is starting to look excessive
could signal major challenges in the long term but fortunately major volcanic cooling events are rare and by the time reglaciation really gets rolling in a couple thousand years the Earth’s surface will be a rigorously controlled combination park/museum
La Nina will certainly not end until spring in the northern hemisphere and may continue.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202301.gif
Yet again, you seem to believe that a snapshot now is some proof of what will happen in the future.
Monthly ONI:
Jan 1951 -0.92
Mar 1951 -0.04
Dec 1964 -0.92
Feb 1965 -0.25
Dec 1971 -1.03
Feb 1972 -0.30
Dec 1983 -0.94
Feb 1984 -0.18
To anybody sensible, anything less than 100 years of climate data is a snapshot. But Alarmists insist it’s 30 years despite literally no evidence for such an arbitrary assumption.
Antonin Twerpy got totally triggered by temperature drop to zero point zero
Seriously? That’s your only contribution here? Try to say something useful.
“But Alarmists insist its 30 years despite literally no evidence for such an arbitrary assumption.”
30 y of data is what meteorologists have been using for decades to determine the climate means for regions.
Such are the surface temperature anomalies in the tropical Pacific now, and they won’t change much until the end of winter in North.
https://i.ibb.co/yncKJJc/gfs-pacific-sat-sstanom-d1.png
that does to seem to be the most common outcome, only a couple La Ninas reversed in the deep winter months and it’s deep enough now that it should take a few Qs to go positive, based on the usual rates of changes
though it’s not certainly not unprecedented (e.g. 1972)
but assuming it doesn’t reverse till MAM the 2020s will already have more La Nina months in the record than any decade since the 1970s, when it briefly appeared we were headed to an icy doom 🙂
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
talldave…”…since the 1970s, when it briefly appeared we were headed to an icy doom…”
***
What worries me is that conditions are right wrt the Sun’s cycle for us to experience another mini ice age like the Little Ice age.
I hope this cooling is just an anomaly but if one solar scientist is correct, were heading into a mini ice age till 2050.
haha yeah that trendline is a little worrying
but it could just be another early 1800s bounce
fortunately either way there’s *probably* enough effect from GHGs to prevent a revival of the River Thames frost fairs in the lifetimes of anyone around today
with luck we’ll bottom out above 1979 temps, warming certainly presents a trivial set of problems relative to cooling
Pffft. Climate contrarians have been predicting imminent cooling for 2 decades and don’t seem to learn anything from being wrong.
Whereas 40 years ago climate modeling predicted general warming of global surface temperatures from then on and got that right.
Happy New Year in Europe:
Thousands of records shattered in historic winter warm spell in Europe.
Swannie chirps in with pathetic sarcasm in an attempt to undermine global cooling.
From the article…
“As temperatures soared 18 to 36 degrees Fahrenheit (10 to 20 Celsius) ….”
Temperatures soared to 10C to 20C. Good grief, we’re all going to die!!! That temperature range is completely normal in Europe for January, depending on location.
The Washington Post is a fake news rag bought off by climate alarmists long ago. Anyone who reads such drivel would claim that heat can flow by its own means from cold to hot.
Gordo can’t reply with data, so he throws something at the wall, asserting that the data must be wrong because the WP posted the article. Another example of his basic denialist lack of interest in facts that bust his anti-science narrative.
swannie…what kind of data is presented with a range from 10C to 20C?
Europe ranges from northern Norway and Sweden down to the Mediterranean. Trying to tell me there is not a range of 10C to 20C between the two?
It’s amazing that Gordo still doesn’t understand climate after all his years of denial. From the article:
That’s not the same as actual temperatures, is it?
Oh, did Gordo also fail to see the twitter graphic too? I expect that the WaPo had nothing to do with that data presentation.
A very stable surface anomaly in the Nino 4 region interacts with a high SOI.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
In two days, Arctic air will descend south over the Great Lakes, and in California cold front will bring more precipitation.
https://i.ibb.co/27KrnJP/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f060.png
Currently a strong snowstorm in South Dakota and Minnesota.
https://i.ibb.co/J7kZ9Yb/Snap-Shot-20230103-172211.jpg
Sioux Falls.
Wow, that’s a much bigger drop than I was expecting. I thought maybe the influence from Tonga-Hunga would still be evident. Possibly T-H has now “left the building”.
Northern Polar Vortex is organizing, finally. But wind speeds remain low. There’s not much historical data on PV unfortunately, as it is a major factor in regulating Earth’s temperature.
The polar vortex will break over North America.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/01/06/1800Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-113.62,61.99,446
Just read that a major storm (Pineapple Express) is headed for California from the Pacific.
There has been no influence from this eruption.
Not any longer, apparently.
Not quite sure, in fact: here is UAH’s grid data for the lower stratosphere in Oct 2022
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kut91328oJEKMjXNwTCBavpxP64x3G9z/view
As far as I have understood a paper linked to by E. Swanson, the very low anomalies in the 60S-82.5S latitudes of the lower stratosphere might well be due to huge quantitites of water vapor blowed up by the Honga Tonga.
Nov and Dec 2022 aren’t published yet, still no data for these months in the grid.
Yet again a rectangular grid which visually places emphasis on the poles at the expense of the equator.
Yet again the ridiculous, opinionated, bossy answer of a person who is always more interested in self-portrayal than in substantive discussion.
Who cares about the difference between the equator and the poles here, you idiot? It’s about displaying the consequences of an event on a grid, and nothing else.
Yet again Blinny fails to acknowledge what all other map/chart specialists simply accept.
P.S. I note that Blinny does not challenge that his presentation visually promotes the poles at the expense of the equator.
“There has been no influence from this eruption.”
That’s an overconfident statement if ever I saw one.
We can check off another prediction
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1267697
Good one haha. I am curious however wondering how it will look with the next El Nio.
entropic must have been on his 4th or 5th pint of Guinness when he made that prediction. Those crazy Irish.
Gordon Robertson
Foiled by a triple dip La Nina.
Would you and/or RLH care to take the same bet this year? At least one UAH monthly anomaly temperature of 0.5C or greater during 2023.
what is the bet
Fairly straightforward. I bet that the UAH monthly anomaly temperature will reach or exceed 0.5C at least once during 2023.
If it does not, I will pay 20 pounds to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. If it does you pay an equivalent amount (25 dollars?) to a charity of your choice.
He was getting his ENSO forecast from Bindiclown
… says the little ankle biting dachshund, ah well ah well!
He can’t forecast anything right, but he is especially blind to La Ninas
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2022-0-26-deg-c/#comment-1279572
The chart is becoming too cluttered at the 750×430 size
I think it should be stretched to 1200 pixels width or something
Just curious, Dr Spencer, but in the past you had to make adjustments based on sat drift. Is another adjustment for that reason coming soon? Thanks for your reply.
Wondering what point you are trying to make. If you mean the adjustments circa 2005, they accounted for an error which UAH claimed was within the stated error margin. Alarmists played that up to make it appear as if the satellite records were error prone.
If that’s the thrust of your question, why not look at the amount of fudging of temperature records blatantly performed by NOAA and NASA GISS? Since 1990, NOAA has slashed 90% of its reporting stations, and circa 2015, they admitted to slashing the reporting stations to less than 1500 to cover the entire solid surface.
In lieu of the slashed stations, NOAA, and GISS, who get their data from NOAA, have been using climate models to fabricate temperatures to replace the real stations they have slashed. On top of that, both have gone back in the temperature record and replaced real temperatures with synthesized temperatures to better fit their meme of a linear warming trend since 1850.
The hottest temperatures in the US occurred in the 1930s and the US has not come close since to the number of heat waves experienced during that decade. Yet NOAA and GISS have amended those temperatures to make them cooler.
As usual, Robertson the clueless ignoramus is lying and lying and lying.
Lie Nr 1:
” Since 1990, NOAA has slashed 90% of its reporting stations, and circa 2015, they admitted to slashing the reporting stations to less than 1500 to cover the entire solid surface. ”
Wrong. NOAA has in GHCN daily over 100,000 stations worldwide, and over 25,000 in GHCN V4.
*
Lie Nr 2:
” The hottest temperatures in the US occurred in the 1930s and the US has not come close since to the number of heat waves experienced during that decade. Yet NOAA and GISS have amended those temperatures to make them cooler. ”
Robertson is such a dumb ass that he still did not understand that the 1930’s were the years with the hottest ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM IN THE CONTIGUOUS US states temperatures, what they still are today as can be seen here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sVA3c7j94Cr12tNcfzSQwdNX8gIV9hjq/view
When using anomalies with annual cycle removal like in UAH, the years since 2000 bypass the 1930’s because the winter anomalies are higher in the recent years.
Gordon claimed once before that 1934 used to be the warmest year in the US and that NOAA altered the data in order to force it down the list.
The reality is that it used to be first on Daily Highs until it was beaten into second place by 2012, and is still in second.
But it has never been first on Daily Lows, being second even back then. It is now 18th (not counting 2022).
This is how Gordon continually misinterprets what he sees. His “memory” doesn’t tell him that he is comparing Averages to Maximums.
Not an alarmist, just wondering if there was another adjustment coming at some point with sat drift issues. You sure are jumpy aren’t you. lol
And I’m plenty aware of the surface record debacle.
In a few days, Siberian frost will freeze the European part of Russia.
https://i.ibb.co/FYqk0rV/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-01-03-191350.png
We just had worst blizzard in my lifetime and Ive see some. I still havent shoveled the drifts. Ive burned a whole winters worth getting of firewood and still months to go. Luckily had several trees come down. To all the people who believe the magic gas hoax and vote for democrats, F U !
darwin…it’s becoming abundantly clear there are people working behind the scenes at an international level to replace our democracies with totalitarians who think they know what is best for all of us.
In the UK, they have started trials in Oxford and Cambridge to block people moving between sectors in the city by automobile. The UK is run by a right-wing, Conservative government who has the highest majority ever.
It’s clear that governments like the UK government are collaborating with advisors behind the scenes who remain unidentified. They did the same with the covid hysteria, consulting with unelected officials to deprive citizens of their democratic rights.
We need to get to the bottom of these cabals and deal with them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64158283
The same polar jetstream instability that is giving you unusually cold weather is also giving Europe record high January temperatures.
You’ve been listening to the denialist straw men. The scientists project a long term global warming trend. They also predict more extreme weather, hot and cold.
I grew up in Cambridge. The town centre is a maze of mediaeval narrow streets with colleges either side and no possibility of road widening.. Oxford is the same. Both have been gridlocked ever since the cart was invented. Both are now recognising that the best response to increasing traffic is to try and keep it out of the city centre.
Last time I was home, vehicle traffic in the city centre was limited to taxis and delivery vehicles. The biggest hazard to pedestrians was students on bicycles.
Where is 2014???
At the time, NOAA rated it the hottest year ever, as did NASA GISS. They forgot to tell us they had rated 2014 based on probabilities. NOAA claimed 2014 the hottest year based on a 48% probability and NASA claimed it based on a 38% probability.
That’s why you cannot rely on climate alarmists like NOAA or GISS.
It’s a ranking system. The highest likely figure goes at the top and so on.
So 2014 was rated 48% chance to be the warmest temperature, factoring the uncertainties in the data, and the next in the rank is the year with 35% chance of being warmest, 3rd having 18% chance and so on.
This has been explained to you more than a dozen times. Do you have some ailment that makes you forget things?
That’s the new baseline what is the anomaly using the old 1981-2010 baseline?
What’s the difference? As Mark Twain put, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
That’s not a shot at UAH, I admire them for their integrity. However, as scientists, they are obliged to use statistical methods that are in common use.
Claiming averages with regard to global temperatures has essentially no meaning. The significance of UAH temperature series is the fact they are based on satellite telemetry that covers 95% of the surface, as opposed to no better than 30% for thermometers.
The true significance of the UAH series is how much lower they are than the unvalidated climate models that are running government policy, or the fudged surface series.
Gordo the troll repeats another demonstration of his ignorance.
For a guy who claims to be an EE, I suggest he doesn’t understand the difference between the terms “telemetry” and “measurement”. Also, the MSU/AMSU instruments do not “cover” 95% of the surface area, since there are areas between successive swaths which are not captured and there are “holes” in coverage over both polar regions.
Besides, the orbits typically provide only one measure a day, either on the daylight or night side of the Earth, as the Earth rotates as the orbit moves from day to night side. Furthermore, the repeat time over a location may be more than 2 days.
Of course, Gordo still can’t grasp that the instruments do not provide data for the surface, which is the basis for the other data sets.
Your posts get more incoherent all the time. And more filled with bs every post.
Gordo the BS artist doesn’t like my comments.
Check out the AMSU data from NOAA.
Look how long it takes the center of the scan (nadir) point to return to any one Equatorial Crossing point. It’s about 9 days in the animation. Don’t forget that the off nadir scans are binned into separate grids for each scan angle, which UAH converts to a monthly value for brightness temperature for each channel. This scheme can’t provide daily values, only monthly averages. The whole exercise is based on the same theoretical calculations as that for greenhouse gases, so if you the UAH stuff is great science, then you must also accept the theoretical results for GHG’s.
AZ1971 says: Thats the new baseline what is the anomaly using the old 1981-2010 baseline?
Up thread “Bellman” claimed it would be +0.17 C on the previous baseline.
As a sanity check the trend for UAH is 0.13 C/decade, so by moving the baseline a decade earlier we’d expect it to be around 0.13 C higher than the reported 0.05 C which would be 0.18 C.
AZ1971
Here are the monthly differences in Celsius between the baselines for 1991-2020 and 1981-2010:
Jan: 0.14
Feb: 0.16
Mar: 0.13
Apr: 0.12
Mai: 0.13
Jun: 0.13
Jul: 0.13
Aug: 0.12
Sep: 0.17
Oct: 0.16
Nov: 0.14
Dec: 0.12
Thus all December anomalies wrt 1991-2020 are 0.12 C lower than those wrt 1981-2010.
Don’t heed Robertson’s blah blah: he’s clueless and lies all the time.
bellman…”Worth remembering that +0.05C today would have been +0.17C when the 1981-2010 base period was being used”.
***
It’s equally worth remembering that Roy and John Christy at UAH did not define climate as the 30 year average of weather. If that’s the definition, they are perfectly right to use a 30 year average as the baseline for their temperature data.
Remember that in the 30 years from 1991 to present, we have seen three El Ninos driving up temperatures to unprecedented levels. In 1998, 2010, and 2016, global temperatures were driven artificially high by ENs.
For some reason, the planet has retained heat from those EN episodes. Following the 1998 EN, global temperatures did not return to normal but remained some 0.2C above the average till then. Same with the 2016 EN. Temperatures are only now returning to where they were before the 2016 event.
Therefore, we have been looking at externally induced warming that is not related to anthropogenic sources.
Gee Whiz, Gordo, aren’t El Nino’s actually “natural” cycles? They occur within the atmosphere/ocean climate system, they aren’t “externally induced warming”.
One things for sure, Godo doesn’t understand the basics of climate.
You’re such a wit, Swannie. Has it not occurred to you that all warming comes from the Sun? Solar energy is internal to the system and recycled heat from EN has to be external. Maybe I should have said re-distributed heat.
Of course, that would be lost on someone who thinks heat can be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.
I love it when Gordo posts another failure to edit(?). Surely he intended to write that the Sun’s energy is an external source. I have no clue about his “re-distributed heat” comment, perhaps he is admitting that there is circulation in the atmosphere and oceans. Who knew?
To add insult, he repeats his usual mantra about the 2nd Law of thermo, while he still can’t explain my experimental evidence for the Green Plate Effect. Same old Gordo.
Between 150 and 200 mm of rain per square meter could fall in northern California in three days from January 5.
That would be welcome in the European Alps: some ski stations had last year a snow deficit of ~ 8 meter.
Tell me ren …. what is the difference in rain intensity between mm/m^2 and mm/km^2 ?
AQ,
Awwww. I’m sure that mm/mm^2 is even better. ClimateSpeak for sure. Like measuring temperatures in W/m^2 or something, but even more confusingly pointless and meaningless.
Accidental in Ren’s case, I’m sure.
No, only ren-speak.
No one measures temperatures in W/m^2. W/m^2 is a meaningful unit for what it is intended to measure. Unlike an attempt to measure volume in mm^(-1).
AQ,
Unfortunately, you can’t actually say what it is intended to measure – in climatological terms, can you?
I agree that temperatures are not measured in W/m2 is, nor are they even directly relatable to temperature.
The IPCC disagrees, of course, and contains silly paragraphs like “Temperature Contribution of Forcing Agents” in Chapter 7 of the Sixth Assessment Report, claiming that GSAT (temperatures) to 0.01 C, can be directly derived from ERF measured in W/m2!
Idiotically delusional, wouldn’t you agree?
About as silly as being unable to explain why, if Dr Spencer is correct, in recent times, the globe has heated up to above the present temperature, and then cooled to the present temperature, at least six times! All due to the magical properties of something measured in W/m2, which controls the temperature of the planet – all the way from its original molten surface, to the present.
You really are a clueless clown of the SkyDragon variety, aren’t you?
Go on, tell me what a measurement of 300 W/m2 from the outside of a container would indicate? Does the container hold ice, boiling water, or something else? Do you care?
Forces aren’t accelerations. Yet when an acceleration is the net result of many forces it makes perfect sense to say “the acceleration contribution of each force”.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Forces arent accelerations. Yet when an acceleration is the net result of many forces it makes perfect sense to say “the acceleration contribution of each force”.
Do all witless SkyDragons use W/m2 to measure force or acceleration, or is it just you trying to appear intelligent?
Dodge and weave all you like – it won’t help to change a single fact.
Keep trying to avoid face reality. Reality doesn’t care. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so. It doesn’t care what you think, either.
[laughing at idiot trying to troll – badly]
Wow – serious comprehension issues there.
“the globe has heated up to above the present temperature, and then cooled to the present temperature, at least six times!”
Do climate deniers really not understand that temperature will vary by small amounts from month to month, as it always has, even with climate change?
Are they really that clueless? Or just trolling?
Or both?
I have just looked at UK data for Sheffield and Durham, two datasets which run from the eighteen hundreds. 2022 doesn’t come out as one of the warmest but only around average. Looking at other data sets around the world gives a mixed picture, with some suggesting that recent years have been catastrophically warming.
Chinese results are particularly interesting.
I never trust any data that doesn’t give me the raw information. Even then, I tend to be suspicious.
RLH
20 transferred to the RNLI.
Good man.
Foiled by a triple dip La Nina.
Would you care to take the same bet this year? At least one UAH monthly anomaly temperature of 0.5C or greater during 2023. Loser donates 20 pounds to the RNLI.
He’s a conservative – you might have to explain for him the meaning of “donate”.
RLH and I have had the same bet for two years now and it’s terms are clearly understood by us both.
The Royal National Lifeboat Institution is the charitable organisation which does coastal rescue in the UK. So far the bet has generated 40 pounds for the RNLI from me. Next January I hope it will receive 20 pounds from RLH. (smile emoji).
“He’s a conservative”
You couldn’t be further from the truth.
Edmund Burke was conservative, Richard, and you like him very much.
“in his parliamentary career, Burke was also an acknowledged champion of liberty”
RLH
So you agree that Trump, Desantis, Taylor-(not no Swift)-Green, and co. are a bunch of self-serving liars who are a magnet to the unintelligent and uneducated?
Burke would have had no truck with Trump et al.
Ben Shapiro exists, therefore Andrew Neil is a liberal.
“… in the 20th century, he became widely regarded, especially in the United States, as the philosophical founder of conservatism”
“At least one UAH monthly anomaly temperature of 0.5C or greater during 2023. Loser donates 20 pounds to the RNLI”
OK.
Good man.
Bellman says:
November 2, 2022 at 7:04 AM
“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.”
* #7 2022 +0.174
Very good.
“September 2014 the trend is flat (The pause grows by 2 months)”
” 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.”
October would be 8 years and 2 months but is it the right starting date?
Do not understand how you can move it up to October as the furthest back when you had used September previously and it has become colder?
Fake maths as well as fake claims?
Sorry to be rude but could you explain the discrepancy in your comments a bit better?
Remember the Arctic sea ice extent is similarly flat for 11 years.
Coincidental or confirmation of a pause in the warming?
Remember that people who make such a claim continue to make comparisons to records instead of looking at trends.
Coincidental, or confirmation of an agenda?
Only fools believe that trends predict the future any better than a twelve year old child.
Keep looking at trends, fool.
Have you managed to explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years or so of the Earth cooling to its present temperature, or is that trend an inconvenient truth?
How’s Darwin treating you Mike?
Only fools believe that trends predict the future any better than a twelve year old child.
Keep looking at trends, fool.
Have you managed to explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years or so of the Earth cooling to its present temperature, or is that trend an inconvenient truth?
#1
Haaah, the brainless blathering stalker is here again.
As usual, having nothing actual to say, he urges in saying something utterly irrelevant.
Binny,
Only fools believe that trends predict the future any better than a twelve year old child.
Keep looking at trends, fool.
Have you managed to explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years or so of the Earth cooling to its present temperature, or is that trend an inconvenient truth?
Not so well apparently. Never mind Mike – life will get better.
Will you alarmists ever get it that solar energy is minimal or absent for most of the Arctic year? It doesn’t matter how much CO2 is in the air, it could never warm the atmosphere enough to make up for the loss of solar input.
Ice melts only during a brief windows of Arctic summer, which lasts about 1 month. Even at that, the temperature does not rise enough to melt ice effectively. So, most of the ice is lost due to wind and ocean currents carrying it off into the North Atlantic where it melts.
Where you clowns got the notion that a trace gas in the atmosphere can produce enough heat to melt Arctic ice is the question. The theory is about as dumb and unscientific as they get.
Gordon
When will you get the notion that the moon’s phases are NOT caused by the earth’s shadow?
AQ,
Well, that’s a really cunning way of avoiding the obvious fact that CO2 has no quantifiable effect on surface temperatures! Not.
Or are you silly enough to believe Gavin Schmidt’s nonsense paper about CO2 being some sort of planetary temperature “control knob”?
Gee, how much CO2 was in the atmosphere when the surface was molten? Where did it all come from? Not a lot of SUV’s around at the time. Only joking, I know you you are a passionate SkyDragon cultist. Faith overcomes fact in all cases for SkyDragons.
Carry on.
Just pointing out that as Gordon doesn’t understand basic science understood by 10 year olds he is not exactly qualified to be sharing a scientific opinion.
Not sure what a SkyDragon is – oh dear, where do I acquire such an education. Apparently you can stick capitals in the middle of words now. I thought that was limited to computer nerds.
Well, thats a really cunning way of avoiding the obvious fact that CO2 has no quantifiable effect on surface temperatures! Not.
Or are you silly enough to believe Gavin Schmidts nonsense paper about CO2 being some sort of planetary temperature control knob?
Gee, how much CO2 was in the atmosphere when the surface was molten? Where did it all come from? Not a lot of SUVs around at the time. Only joking, I know you you are a passionate SkyDragon cultist. Faith overcomes fact in all cases for SkyDragons.
Carry on.
Heads up Mike – after selecting the text you want to copy, if you don’t press ctrl-C before pasting it then you end up pasting the last message again. Try to be a bit more careful next time.
AQ,
Well, thats a really cunning way of avoiding the obvious fact that CO2 has no quantifiable effect on surface temperatures! Not.
Or are you silly enough to believe Gavin Schmidts nonsense paper about CO2 being some sort of planetary temperature control knob?
Gee, how much CO2 was in the atmosphere when the surface was molten? Where did it all come from? Not a lot of SUVs around at the time. Only joking, I know you you are a passionate SkyDragon cultist. Faith overcomes fact in all cases for SkyDragons.
Carry on.
;>
Antonin,
I think this is the source of the term “Sky Dragon”:
Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organisation based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI was formed in 2010 around the time they published their first book, titled Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
In 2013, PSI also began to promote unfounded claims that wind turbines make people sick and that childhood vaccines were one of the largest most evil lies in history.
The two named directors were John OSullivan, of the UK, and a Walter James OBrien.
(reposted)
Well spotted, sb.
When I refer to Dragon cranks, I am of course referring to those who entertain similar beliefs (rather disbeliefs) as the garden-variety cranks of this blog. But since they do not share all the same disbeliefs, I came up with the following nomenclature:
A Sky Dragon crank denies (or minimizes) the greenhouse effect.
A Moon Dragon crank denies that the Moon spins.
This could be extended to other forms of crankery. The only limit is Gordo’s or gb’s imagination. A surprising side effect of that convention is that Mike Flynn keeps mentioning the brand to make sure that he’s our most beloved Sky Dragon crank.
Hope this helps.
An engineer commenting on scientific topics is like a farmer commenting on brain surgery.
angech
” Remember the Arctic sea ice extent is similarly flat for 11 years. ”
Aha. That’s new to me:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17RBeTrCw6bTcvnUOI3Sxvr_-jXx81VvS/view
Trends in Mkm^2/yr for 4 consecutive 11 year periods
– 1979-1989: -0.32 +- 0.08
– 1990-2000: -0.25 +- 0.09
– 2001-2011: -0.98 +- 0.11
– 2012-2022: -0.31 +- 0.15
Under ‘flat’ we seem to understand slightly different things, don’t we?
*
Despite Flynnson’s boring, aggressive and as usual completely irrelevant ‘billion year cooling’ post, Antonin Qwerty is plain right with his comment: not two arbitrarily chosen points in time matter, but the trend between them.
*
Moreover: why are you fixated on Arctic sea ice? What about looking at the Antarctic?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16WB0LUn6XujkDG9FgKYU1IhPZMyfznUH/view
*
Source
https://tinyurl.com/s6d98by4
Binny,
You wrote –
“Despite Flynnsons boring, aggressive and as usual completely irrelevant billion year cooling post, Antonin Qwerty is plain right with his comment: not two arbitrarily chosen points in time matter, but the trend between them.”
Here you go, then –
One point – molten surface. Another, later, point – surface not molten. Colder.
Trend – cooling.
Deny away, dummy.
When do your artfully contrived trends indicate the seas will boil again? Only one point needed, so the task should be easy for a trendsetter like you. Maybe you should start yapping about dachshunds, arrogance and boredom – you silly sauerkrautish reality denier!
Off you go.
This article is about corruption in medicine but I think it’s applicable to the CAGW scam.
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/376/bmj.o702.full.pdf
This article is about the link between climate change and dementia but I think it’s applicable to some here.
https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad201388
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1610416059940495363/photo/1
That worked.
In none of three, were we going to the Moon.
Perhaps one could add, Blade Runner, making it, a 1/4 going to stars.
I think most people going to go Venus.
In terms of climate issues, I was thinking about caves in Mars.
Earth has lot of caves some as deep as couple km, it seems Mars should more caves and deeper caves than Earth.
And it seems deeper caves could be flooded with water.
On Earth some caves are made by water, on Mars, caves could make water.
Mars has about 240 ppm of water vapor- in terms global average, but can locations and times there much higher levels- 100 times more.
And seems to me, for caves make water, one needs a higher level at surface than 240 ppm.
And once water is made in cave which at lower elevation {a deep enough cave] the water stays in the cave.
So, googled oldest cave [on earth]:
“We were amazed in 2006, when scientists announced that Jenolan Caves is the worlds oldest cave system yet discovered. In a study published in the June issue of the Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (Vol. 53, 377-405), scientists from CSIRO, the University of Sydney and the Australian Museum showed that Jenolan Caves has been existing and changing for at least 340 million years.”
https://www.jenolancaves.org.au/about/blog/worlds-oldest-caves-never-stop-changing/
It seems caves on Mars [or Moon] could be billions of years old- and rather some, most are very ancient.
Or change topic, ice cores on Mars on going very old too. It entire surface is old [unlike Earth.
Apollo goes the Moon a finds a 4.5 billion rock, all of them are old.
So, I use to think one might possibly find lake in cave on Mars- or something Earth caves**, now I am wondering if some caves just ends with water, and continue for miles filled with water.
And comes down to, does Mars have periods, could as short as 10 years where it has much higher global water vapor than 210 ppm? Say within last 10 million years.
**
“Dragons Breath Cave, located in the Otjozondjupa Region of Namibia, is home to the largest non-subglacial underground lake in the whole world. The actual depth of the lake is not known (although its thought to be at least 430 feet deep), as the cave is around 330 feet below the surface of the earth. The lake was discovered in 1986 when a group of explorers felt a humid breeze coming out of a hole in the cave, which is where Dragons Breath came from.”
https://www.fodors.com/news/photos/10-underground-lakes-around-the-world
querty…”The reality is that it used to be first on Daily Highs until it was beaten into second place by 2012, and is still in second”.
***
First of all, I am being critiqued by someone who gets his nym from the first 6 alphabetical keys on the keyboard.
Secondly, according to UAH, 1998, 2010, and 2016 were warmer than 2012, yet querty picks 2012, which was -0,15C below the baseline as being warmer than 1934.
Did you notice I said NOAA, not UAH? Having reading difficulties?
And I can’t help it if you can’t see the connection between Antonin and Qwerty. It takes two pieces of knowledge and a bit of culture, so I guess you had no hope.
Let’s help the eternally lying ignoramus with a tiny hint, maybe it works despite the rather unusual characters:
Antonín Qweřtý
Bindidon: More clues only make Gordon more confused. I’m sure tumble weed is still all that is occupying his thoughts.
Gordon: You really should expand your experience beyond the “New World”.
querty…”Did you notice I said NOAA, not UAH?”
***
Don’t care who you quoted, I quoted a reliable source (UAH) with strong integrity, not a load of cheating fudgers (NOAA).
Heavy downpours in eastern Australia. La Nina is operating in Australia.
Nup – just showers. 17 days since we last had more than a quarter inch in a day. 2 mm is the worst day in the past five. Only an average of 2.2 mm per day over the past 2.5 months. You must be looking at the reports from earlier last year.
Rainfall: Total Forecast Rainfall
http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDYPME04/20230105_20230112/pme1to8.png
So the vast majority of Australia is forecast to receive less than 50 mm in an entire week. What’s left is NORTHERN Australia, not east. Need me to explain the compass points to you?
“Monthly summary
Australia in December 2022
4 January 2023
Rainfall
For Australia as a whole, December rainfall was 33% above the 19611990 average. However, this national average is composed of significant geographic differences between the tropics and the southern half of Australia.
Rainfall was above or very much above average for most of the Northern Territory, western Queensland and the Cape York Peninsula, the eastern half of the Kimberley and the Gascoyne in Western Australia. For the Northern Territory as a whole, December area-averaged rainfall was the 8th-highest on record (compared with all Decembers since 1900).
Rainfall was below average for parts of the southern half of Australia, including parts of south-west and inland southern Western Australia, eastern New South Wales and south-eastern Queensland, extending into the Central Highlands District, and western and northern Tasmania.
An active pulse of monsoonal activity towards the end of the month brought areas of embedded storms and tropical showers across parts of northern Australia, resulting in some observations of heavy rainfall. Daily rainfall records for December were set at a few stations in the Northern Territory and Western Australia in the Kimberley and Gascoyne at the end of the month. A small handful of stations observed record high rainfall totals for December as a whole in the Northern Territory and in Queensland’s Cape York Peninsula.”
1961-1990
Oh! Breakfast time in Oz?
The visit of this blog’s greatest Ozzie could really be imminent then!
I have not challenged the fact that Australia has been wetter – that is expected for a La Nina. I am challenging the claim that the east of Australia is CURRENTLY getting heavy rain. We are getting showers/light rain, and we have just had a week of sunshine.
And I’m not sure what noting rain in Australia during La Nina is designed to prove anyway.
Bindidon
I’m struggling to think who that might be. Don Bradman died 20 years ago.
BTW – Ozzie is an ostrich – we are Aussies.
Antonin Qwerty
Apologies for being a bit cryptic.
1. ” Im struggling to think who that might be. ”
I meant this blogs greatest one, as he appears to post his genial contributions during the ‘Australian day’, imho :–)
2. I thought that when Oz is the name for Australia, Ozzie would be an acceptable nickname for Australians. Duh.
Oh, you mean Flynnson.
Ozzie and Aussie are pronounced the same, so it only makes a difference in writing.
But Yanks believe ‘Aussie’ is pronounced with an ‘s’ sound, so perhaps ‘Ozzie’ helps them out.
They also believe Melbourne is pronounced Melboorrrne, and Brisbane is pronounced Brisbayne. And the Yanks here probably believe Darwin is pronounced ‘Evolution scam’.
AQ,
You wrote –
“I have not challenged the fact that Australia has been wetter that is expected for a La Nina. I am challenging the claim that the east of Australia is CURRENTLY getting heavy rain. We are getting showers/light rain, and we have just had a week of sunshine.”
Climate is the statistics of historical weather.
Weather is unpredictable. No point arguing about the future, and a bit late arguing after the fact.
If you are trying to troll, you need to up your game.
“If you are trying to troll, you need to up your game.”
Do you have any tips from your lifetime of practice, Flynnstone.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/rainfall/
RLH
As I said – about 4-7 mm per day. That is not heavy rain.
NOW it’s pissing down. Only 36 hours out. Good timing is essential for your comedy.
Somewhere Benjamin Franklin is laughing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64158234
You might like:
https://www.msnbc.com/the-revolution-with-steve-kornacki
*Laughs in Newtspeak.*
McCarthy keeps having humiliating votes, which has been described with this meme
https://youtu.be/gqdNe8u-Jsg
Solar wind
speed: 383.6 km/sec
density: 10.17 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 89
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 149 sfu
Updated 04 Jan 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 14.95×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.5% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.3%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Some small coronal holes on nearside, thermosphere less
energized, Neutral counts high. Less coronal holes are solar
max like condition, thermosphere and neutron counts are not.
No new sunspots coming from far side, yet. Jan could be going
back to sideways- Dec may be just a spike rather than a “start”
to more active solar max.
Despite what appears steep rise in beginning, this could be weak cycle.
I think it’s going take off, but could take a couple months.
Solar wind
speed: 492.4 km/sec
density: 7.41 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 86
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 151 sfu
Updated 05 Jan 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.18×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.2% Elevated
48-hr change: -1.5%
No holes, thermosphere adding, Neutron Counts lowering,
but could be getting quieter- or sideways for Jan
Solar wind
speed: 387.6 km/sec
density: 4.56 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 104
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 172 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.17×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.7% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.0%
Have medium size hole in northern Hemisphere but not near Equator
We got 3182 which could flare X-ray, or cause problems on Earth
“INCREASING CHANCE OF FLARES: There are now 3 sunspots facing Earth with unstable ‘delta-class’ magnetic fields: AR3181, 82 and 83. NOAA forecasters say there is a 40% chance of M-class solar flares and a 20% chance of X-flares on Jan. 8th. Solar flare alerts: SMS Text.
CHANCE OF FLARES TODAY: NOAA forecasters say there is a 20% chance of X-class solar flares today. If it happens, it will probably come from sunspot AR3182,”
https://www.spaceweather.com/
One call that exciting, but it could get less active- don’t see anything coming from farside {yet}.
Updated 08 Jan 2023
Solar wind
speed: 396.4 km/sec
density: 6.25 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 201
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 181 sfu
Updated 10 Jan 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.37×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +2.4% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.7%
Solar wind
speed: 528.3 km/sec
density: 6.25 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 151
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 212 sfu
Updated 13 Jan 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 15.74×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.8% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.6%
More sunspots coming.
We could really get in solar max, soon
Solar wind
speed: 451.5 km/sec
density: 3.08 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 170
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 228 sfu
Updated 15 Jan 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 16.21×10^10 W Neutral
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.3% Elevated
48-hr change: -1.4%
Looks like Jan is just going up.
Is safe to say Neutron counts are going down and down?
I love it that the alarmists are now arguing over fractions of a degree of warming. What happened to the hockey stick? Shouldnt we be in an out of control, exponential acceleration towards the end of the world by now? Or are you finally ready to admit Mann is a fraudster? No, not yet? Oh dear.
Some mega-idiot ignoramuses here name me an alarmist. I love it!
*
What about looking at this famous hockey stick, Harves?
Here is, using the PAGES2K data I downloaded years ago, the hockey stick’s end within a 2000 year period:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QNmA5_rTVCHEOCo87TcPvmuB2GO_jiSV/view
And here is the same end within about a century, compared to
– the surface data since 1891, processed by Japan’s Met Agency, one of the ‘coolest’ temperature data providers
and
– UAH’s lower troposphere data since 1979:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1glV0YjxweCjBdF9cxb4cG8wYhUE74BBS/view
The two charts show the same kind of anomalies – all computed wrt the mean of 1981-2010.
*
Where the heck is your problem?
Source (current revision)
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/pages2k/neukom2019temp/recons/Full_ensemble_median_and_95pct_range.txt
Call you Trottel instead
#1
I was sure that whenever the little ankle-biting dachshund sees a tree, it would think, ‘Oh! Time to get rid of a little pile.’
Selective tree measurements, spliced with white box measurements.
Have little to do with global measurements.
harves…”Or are you finally ready to admit Mann is a fraudster? No, not yet? Oh dear”.
***
I don’t think Mann was intentionally fraudulent, he was simply in way over his head. He had just received his Ph.D at the time he published the paper and it’s the IPCC needs to share the blame for paying so much attention to the paper.
The IPCC acknowledged both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period in their 1990 review. Someone should have noted that Mann’s paper erased both and wondered why. Instead, they were only too happy to receive the accolades, along with Mann.
When it became obvious that the paper had major errors, as revealed by an investigation by the National Academy of Science, and a statistics expert, appointed by the US government, the IPCC backed off immediately, redrawing the hockey stick with plenty of error bars while reinstating the LIA and MWP. Mann’s straight shaft disappeared.
Then the IPCC changed direction again. They have now discredited the LIA because it obviously raises serious questions about their pet theory, that increasing CO2 is warming the atmosphere. If it gets out that the world was 1C to 2C cooler up till 1850, when they began claiming anthropogenic warming, serious people might ask why the world is not re-warming from LIA cooling.
The most egregious error revealed by NAS was the proxy data used for the entire 20th century, pinetree bristlecone. NAS slapped the hands of the authors, and told them, no, no, you can’t do that. NAS essentially eliminated the blade from the hockey stick with their criticism.
That would not happen today since NAS has been taken over by climate alarmists.
“I dont think Mann was intentionally fraudulent, he was simply in way over his head.”
He said splicing proxies was wrong, and then he did it.
Maybe he just brain dead.
The New Pause lengthens: 100 Months with No Warming At All
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
-The cold weather on both sides of the Atlantic last month seems to have had its effect on temperature, which fell sharply compared with November, lengthening the New Pause to 8 years 4 months, as measured by the satellites designed, built and operated by Dr Roy Spencer and Dr John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville-
So 8 and 1/3 years of no increase of global temperature.
Supports my idea that we are done recovering from the Little Ice Age.
Of course it’s just called that, because it was coldest period in thousands of years.
We are in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age. Some the last 3 million year is
an Ice Age, because during last 3 million years has been the coldest period within the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
Rather use the term Ice Age, it can be called an Icehouse global climate. A Icehouse global climate has ice sheets, and we have two well known ice sheet, one in Antarctia and one in Greenland. The Greenland sheet was added within last 3 million years.
Another critical aspect of an Icehouse global climate is a cold ocean. This means the entire Ocean’s average temperature.
The average ocean surface temperature of the ocean is quite high and it’s always been quite high. Average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and average global land is about 10 C, which give global average temperature of about 15 C. Or roughly there is 70% of surface being ocean and about 30% being land areas.
But entire ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C which is the coldest our ocean has been during the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
It is said that more than 90% of global warming has been warming this
cold ocean. And it hasn’t warmed by much. One could it’s warmed a small amount which in not easy to measure [or barely measurable], but even “barely measurable amount of increase the average of 3.5 C temperature will increase global average air temperature.
In warmest parts recent interglacial periods the average ocean temperature was 4 C or warmer. And had sea levels 4 to 9 meter higher
than present sea levels.
In such warmer conditions the average ocean surface temperature could be 18 to 19 C and land average could well above 10 C, such around 15 C.
But during our Late Cenozoic Ice Age, average ocean surface could been 20 C or more and land being around 18 C.
And in warmest global climates, called greenhouse global climates, ocean surface temperature would always stay above 20 C and there are no ice sheets. And entire ocean stays 8 to 10 C or warmer.
The Third Viscount’s zeal and stubbornness would make any retired Bavarian elementary school teacher jealous.
Lol.
“In 1995, Monckton and his wife opened Monckton’s, a shirt shop in King’s Road, Chelsea.”
Yep, a shirt seller commenting on climate change.
As useful as a farmer commenting on brain surgery.😂
For those who might think the student is making up rubbish:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
“Yep, a shirt seller commenting on climate change”.
***
Over at skepticalscience there is a cartoonist spouting off about climate alarm while passing himself off as a solar scientist. At desmogblog, another alarmist site, a PR specialist, Hoggan, is passing himself off as someone with knowledge of physics. He is unabashedly funded by a convicted felon.
At realclimate, run by NASA GISS chief, Gavin Schmidt, and his buddy, geologist Michael Mann, they pass themselves off as experts on climate, even though Schmidt has a degree in mathematics and has expertise only with programming climate models. It is not obvious to me what expertise Mann may have.
In April 2020, was elected member of the National Academy of Sciences. Along with Antonella Santuccione Chadha, he also received the World Sustainability Award from the MDPI Sustainability Foundation.
In 2022, the American Physical Society recognized him with the Leo Szilard Lectureship Award “for distinguished contributions to the public’s understanding of climate science controversies, and to how our individual and collective actions can mitigate climate change.”
Obviously he has conned everybody – just like Donald Trump.
stupid b…”In April 2020, was elected member of the National Academy of Sciences”.
***
Who was inducted, Monckton?
Mann’s dissertation was “A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system”, essentially looking at natural variability in the climate system.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/31ddd973f46e411e6cd0d570105bc820/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
s,
And why not? Climate is the statistics of historical weather events. Some SkyDragon cultists apparently believe that calculating arithmetical averages is exceptionally difficult – and requires exceptional intellectual prowess!
Boo hoo! Gavin Schmidt is not even a scientist, just a pretentious mathematician and pathetically inept computer program fiddler. Michael Mann has been described as as a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, and I see no reason to disagree.
Maybe your shirt-seller is better equipped to comment on climate science than the aforementioned two fools.
You can’t even describe the GHE in way that accords with observed fact, can you? That’s because you are a delusional SkyDragon cultist who prefers fantasy to fact.
Carry on.
Yes. Gavin only holds a PhD in applied mathematics.
Utterly worthless.
He should take up selling shirts.
stupid b…”Yes. Gavin only holds a PhD in applied mathematics.
Utterly worthless”.
***
You said, wish I had thought of that.
Applied math is applying math to another field, in his case, climate science.
Some here seem perplexed that math can be applied to science at all.
What field did Isaac Newton get his PhD?*
FYI, climate models use lots of complex math equations. Anyone of average intelligence ought to be able to figure out how skills in applied math could be very helpful for that endeavor, which involves a team of people, some no doubt, with relevant science degrees.
*None. But he was a Professor of Mathematics.
I’d sooner trust a farmer on brain surgery than you on anything related to climate change claptrap.
A farmer does learn a lot in the practice of animal husbandry that would sooner qualify him as a brain surgeon than most members of the public.
Yes. I have heard some farmers are excellent dealing with b.s.
They would feel right at home here.
Monckton might not be on the cutting edge of science but he has done his homework regarding climate.
“Monckton might not be on the cutting edge ..”
I did hear that his job at the shop was actually cutting out the material to make the shirts.
Too, I’ve had my fill of know-nothing-experts these past couple of years.
If I were stuck on an Island with you and you needed brain surgery or die, would you let me read the book and give it a try? Or would you insist on letting only an ‘expert’ do it?
Expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about absolutely (expletive deleted) all.
“If I were stuck on an Island with you and you needed brain surgery or die..”
I think I would prefer to die rather than have to listen to the ravings of a skeptic.
“If I were stuck on an Island with you”
Ok, but lets not pretend that resembles the world, where all of us would choose real doctors over pretenders.
Specialization is for insects.
Nate says:
”Ok, but lets not pretend that resembles the world, where all of us would choose real doctors over pretenders.”
—————————
Yes that is absolutely correct. But the only reason why is that licensed doctors have a legal liability to properly treat their patients.
Before that become a requirement the world was full of quacks but the AMA took on the task of ensuring that obligation was fulfilled without a lot of fly by nighters zipping around like vultures.
A little bit of solar, just for fun
I’m somewhat surprised that two measurements of Sun’s activity
– the Sun Spot Number managed by the Belgian SILSO, and
– Canada’s Solar radio flux
which over the long term look rather similar
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1feKmUHJRDy1jDunVXdQ3ndhHMlNG_7Or/view
begin to show different views on Solar Cycle SC25 compared to its predecessor SC24 – from their respective begin till end of 2022.
1. F10.7 till end of 2022
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QX3O6JIK3RIhUJgiqdhim4yUaG9ZwfR/view
2. SSN till end of 2022
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yu9G_SqfDMF3upJnOh_EmW6RLjHeuA5a/view
*
While the slope of SC25’s red cubic spline in the F10.7 chart still keeps straight, that of SC25’s spline turns CW, possibly showing that the cycle weakens.
*
A month ago, I extended the third order polynomials’ window in both charts till end of 2024, by the way obtaining something like a projection made on the base of the data existing till end of 2022.
3. F10.7 till end of 2024
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jq4WtwwH8vcY3Fdx7vEFGge8niRmqHRn/view
Sounds a bit like McIntosh’s forecast.
4. SSN till end of 2024
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tHfkEFiRqvt8kXgeIciqMR1u8nRrygUT/view
Oooops?! Solar extinction in December 2024 !!!
OMG. Sauve qui peut!
You should send your poly-idiotic charts to McIntosh, tell him you are a big fan of his.
#2
I was sure that whenever the little ankle-biting dachshund sees a tree, it would think, Oh! Time to get rid of a little pile.
Hi Roy,
Any chance you could create two new colums in the data
list. One for Global Lands and one for Global Oceans.
I am interested to be able to compare troposheric temps iver the oceans against the CDAS Global Oceans temp anomaly.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Cheers.
plateaudweller
I hope you discovered in between that what you miss in fact exists since ‘evah’:
https://tinyurl.com/4n4hnjtj
Columns 4 resp. 5
Just figured out that Antonin Querty is either Bob Droege or Barry.
C’mon, Gordo.
Right – because of course only two people live in Australia, you clueless drone.
Bob lives in Cali, Antonin.
If that may console you, Mike Flynn still lives down under.
Flynnstone still lives 4000 km away from me. That puts me just out of range of his stench.
Once did a 4000 km drive from Perth to Darwin. Don’t know two other cities in Oz that distance apart. Did I guess right or does one of you live regionally?
I live in Sydney, by the way, in the beach suburb that is Kings Cross by the sea.
a querty…”Forces arent accelerations. Yet when an acceleration is the net result of many forces it makes perfect sense to say the acceleration contribution of each force”.
***
You should take that up with NASA. One of their coordinators on missions actually claimed that accelerations create forces.
Furthermore, In Principia, Newton offered the disclaimer…’If a force can move a mass…’, then f = ma. That disclaimer is not offered in any modern physics I have encountered, where it is assumed that a force of any magnitude can accelerate a mass of any magnitude.
When discussing non-inertial forces (aka fictitious forces), it is indeed correct to say that the acceleration “creates” the force. But I’m sure non-inertial forces belong to the long list of scientific concepts which you deny.
a querty…”When discussing non-inertial forces (aka fictitious forces), it is indeed correct to say that the acceleration creates the force”.
***
It’s dangerous to think that way in science. When you start giving properties to phenomena they don’t have you can trap yourself into thinking time and space are real, and formulate a dumb theory about space-time.
When you start arbitrarily changing reference frames, you are indulging in human illusion, and you’d better be damned careful. The human mind has difficulty visualizing more than 4 dimensions and even at that, one of the dimensions has no basis in reality. With the 4 dimensions of x,y,z,t. the fourth t, is not real.
When ee deal with 4 dimensions as stated, we need to employ matrices. However, the problem there is that we give up direct observation and must rely on our mathematics to represent reality.
If you watch a dragster accelerate through different stages of motion, acceleration as a phenomenon becomes apparent. However, to measure it, we had to invent time, therefore the human expression of acceleration contains a parameter, time, that has no existence.
Einstein appears to have missed the obvious. In one of his papers on relativity he stated that time is the hands on a clock. He appears to have suffered from a belief that a clock is measuring an independent phenomenon called time when in fact, a clock measures the rotational period of the Earth, which is relatively constant.
When you live by thought-experiment, and much of Einstein’s work was based on thought-experiment, you can get trapped into making some seriously incorrect assumptions about reality.
As I predicted …
“where it is assumed that a force of any magnitude can accelerate a mass of any magnitude.”
So, enlighten us? What net force is required to cause an acceleration of of 1000 kg object?
0.000001 N?
0.0001 N?
0.01 N?
1 N?
100 N?
Where precisely is the dividing line between “a force that can move this mass” and “a force that cannot move this mass?
a querty…”And I cant help it if you cant see the connection between Antonin and Qwerty. It takes two pieces of knowledge and a bit of culture, so I guess you had no hope”.
***
We don’t study culture in engineering, just how to apply the science we learn at an honours level. In fact, we throw cultured people into any pond that can be found locally. If one is not available, we carry our own tank with us and fill it at a local university water source.
As an engineer, you learn to keep a set of dry clothing in your locker.
Another sign of dementia – speaking of the distant past in the present tense.
Cool story. You forgot to mention the engineers’ ‘culture’ of drinking. Apparently it makes them “real men”.
Most engineers at university are in an age range from 19 to 25. Who among us can claim to have been sane in that age range.
Are you admitting to insanity?
It is about time.
Robertson
No real engineer among my former colleagues did ever behave so incredibly ignorant and stubborn like you do here all the time.
You are no engineer.
binny…we are talking about students studying applied science at a university, not locomotive engineers.
So why did you include yourself in that group?
binny…”Sauve qui peut!”
***
What kind of Kraut speaks French???
The kind that defected from West to East Germany
Only ignoramuses ask such dumb questions or give the wrong answer.
” The kind that defected from West to East Germany ”
Hmmmh. Strange…
Only Germans would mention something like that.
Je dirais plus à l’est encore, Binny.
Europeans usually speak two or three languages fluently.
Exactement, Ken. Und ich würde sogar sagen: genau.
ENSO events are (more or less) Jul-Jun events, not Jan-Dec.
Here are UAH Jul-Jun averages for all non-weak La Nina years:
https://tinyurl.com/Non-Weak-La-Ninas
The two higher points (98-99 and 10-11) are the only two that came right off the back of strong El Ninos.
Thanks, interesting.
I concur with Murry Salby that the temperature is undergoing step changes. It is now oscillating about 0.2-0.25C. In 1998 it shot up to a high of 0.6C and then started oscillating between -0.4C and 0.3C. In 2015 it shot up to 0.7C and then started oscillating between 0 and 0.5C.
It seems like the band is getting narrower. From 1988 the band was about 0.8C, from 1998 the band was a little narrower, and now appears a little narrower.
If by “band” you mean standard deviation, it is all over the place:
80s: 0.17
90s: 0.23
00s: 0.14
10s and 20s: 0.19
Or, dividing the 44 years of data into two groups of 22 years:
1979-2000: 0.21
2001-2022: 0.19
Barely any difference.
No, you’re not looking at it correctly. I’m talking about the oscillating pattern it settles into after it spiked up.
You can’t take all data points like it is some linear fit.
It is not clear what you mean or what you want to measure.
How much a time series oscillates at which places is best shown by a low pass filter output over it, e.g. Savitzky-Golay:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fsD_HeiiXKEh8453stja6VWNw8bSEuzN/view
Hmmmh.
Narrowing very, very strong, doesn’t it?
I would ignore the last couple of years of your ‘filtered’ curve– it is more of a prediction than real data.
Nate
As opposed to running means (CTRMs included of course) which all lack data within their working window, Savitzly-Golay filters smooth data from begin till end.
Sorry.
S-G is a projection, not a prediction. There is no actual data in half of its window (the same width as a CTRM).
Linsley Hood shows as usual off with his own inventions.
Savitzky-Golay is not a projection. It is a data smoothing technique whose processing encompasses the entire data it analyzes.
Here is a comparison of S-G to Vaughan Pratt’s CTRM:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aPHcf_yPER_e6wAje3cC0_ji7oSwwDOt/view
*
A projection is what you extrapolate beyond existing data, for example by using a polynomial:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jq4WtwwH8vcY3Fdx7vEFGge8niRmqHRn/view
If you do not recognize how an S-G works….
It is created by fitting a higher order curve (in this case 2nd order, then repeated a few times in order to get a fit to a CTRM of the same width) to the data.
Using it on its own as a single pass causes much low frequency to leak through as can be seen by examining your ‘curves’.
The later half of the window you create using it will vary quite a bit depending on the data you add into the later half of it and the fit you then use. That, unless you recognize that it is subject to that data and its changes, cannot be an extrapolation, purely a projection.
For a true analysis of what the UAH data to date shows, see
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/01/uah-global.jpeg
The UKs annual average temperature topped 10C for the first time in 2022, as last year was confirmed as the countrys warmest on record.
Three points…
1)The UK’s metoffice are a load of alarmists who get fudged data from NOAA and fudge it even more.
2)The UK sits in the Gulf Stream, receiving heated water from the Caribbean.
3)There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics…M. Twain.
A couple of extra hot days during the year could easily skew the average. A while back, it was reported around 2021 that the UK had suffered some record highs. I went looking over the record and found the report to be bs. The high reported was no hotter than temperatures going back decades.
The point is, there are blatant liars in government organizations trying to create fear of record high temperatures. Our agency, once called Environment Canada is now called Environment and Climate Change Canada.
They create climate scenarios that don’t exist. A year ago in November we had flooding here in the province of BC, as we often have each year. That flooding exceeded the damage of other years mainly because a dike the government had been warned was too low, broke.
EC was raving at the mouth about the flooding being caused by climate change. We who read about such matters knew the cause was the La Nina currently still in progress and even EC had literature on their site acknowledging that LNs cause flooding in our part of the country. Since I pointed that out to EC, the reference to LN has been removed.
This year, we had one of the coldest Novembers in history while climate change implies a warming climate. We had no flooding to speak of. So, where did the climate change disappear to?
In the same year of the November flood, we had a heat dome parked over the Pacific NW. It went south as far as Portland, Oregon. On the inside of the dome near Portland it was 40C+ yet a few miles away it was 20C. How the heck does climate change due to a trace gas do that?
Naturally, EC began raving that the heat was a product of climate change. Meantime, NOAA, who is equally alarmist, claimed it was caused by the same LN conditions that caused the flooding in November.
Speaking of raving…
Gordon believes you and I are the same person. That is what qualified as “thinking” for him.
Seriously we are 0.05C above a 40 year average and you want me to be concerned. The driver is the sun. We have insane people in Oxford turning it into a 15 minute city and penalising people for driving out of their zone 100 times in a year. Sheffield will be charging anything above a car 10 a day and larger vehicles 50 a day to come in the inner ring road. Its one big fraud to raise money.
” Seriously we are 0.05C above a 40 year average… ”
Typical nonsense.
You seem to belong to those who post here since years but still don’t understand the difference between a single anomaly and the temperature difference over a period ending with that anomaly.
Dec 2022 is in the LT 0.53 C above the temperature of Dec 1978.
But be happy! You still don’t need to be concerned: 1.2 C per century, that’s hardly anything.
CMIP5 model projections have a 30-year trend of 0.37C/decade vs, UAH 6.0 44-year tens of just 0.13C/decade.
This is hard evidence computer model warming projections and ECS estimates are 3 TIMES higher than reality, which effectively disconfirms the stupid CAGW scam..
Thats the point
That’s a stupid point indeed!
It’s simply ugly to compare surface models with the lower troposphere at 700 hPa aka ~ 4 km altitude.
Did you ever compare GISS land-only with the RATPAC-B balloon time series for the surface?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UuPb709N4zleyWhZrKyiSG0ISyfGZajA/view
And here is a comparison of RATPAC-B to UAH and RSS LT at 700 hPa:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zR6wh8k4vZWYVpkwbnJD7fh4aF5sY_Co/view
The UAH data doesn’t measure the temperature at the surface.
The UAH data is gathered by scans which cross the equator at fixed local times, one on the Sun lit side and the other on the dark side. These data are not like the surface land based station data which historically captured daily high and low temperatures and lately may include hourly measurements. Ocean temperatures have been deduced from the surface water measurements.
The UAH data may also be corrupted by the influence of melting sea-ice, as sea-ice appears warmer than open water. As the Arctic sea-ice extent has declined the past 44 years and the increasing incidence of melt ponds on first year ice has increased, the effect would be a cooling trend included in the MSU/AMSU data.
Not to forget, there are other groups analyzing the data, for example, RSS reports a global trend for their TLT at 0.211 K/decade.
UAH corrupted by melting sea-ice. Sea surface corrupted by heat-island. We officially have our bounds. Maybe RSS has been the “right” data set all along.
See
Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric temperatures
used in climate research
John R. Christy, Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell and Robert Junod
2018
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report
5 (IPCC AR5, 2013) discussed bulk atmospheric temperatures as
indicators of climate variability and change. We examine four satellite datasets producing bulk tropospheric temperatures, based on microwave sounding units (MSUs), all updated since IPCC AR5. All datasets produce high correlations of anomalies versus independent observations from radiosondes (balloons), but differ somewhat in the metric of most interest, the linear trend beginning in 1979. The trend is an indicator of the response of the climate system to rising greenhouse gas concentrations and other forcings, and so is critical to understanding the climate. The satellite results indicate a range of nearglobal (+0.07 to +0.13C decade−1) and tropical (+0.08 to +0.17C decade−1) trends (19792016), and suggestions are presented to account for these differences. We show evidence that MSUs on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations satellites (NOAA-12 and −14, 19902001+) contain spurious warming, especially noticeable in three of the four satellite datasets. Comparisons with radiosonde datasets independently adjusted for inhomogeneities and Reanalyses suggest the actual tropical (20S-20 N) trend is +0.10 0.03C decade−1
. This tropical result is over a factor of two less than the trend projected from the average of the IPCC climate model simulations for this same period (+0.27C decade−1).”
RLH, What’s your point? Quotes from the UAH report:
Since the TMT is contaminated with the cooling trend from the Stratosphere, the trends can’t be directly compared with the simulations.
In other words, they are comparing the TMT with SIMULATED data sets, as they describe on page 6,
swannie…”The UAH data doesnt measure the temperature at the surface”.
***
It is claimed that channel 5 is centred at about 4 km. Everest is at least 8 km high, therefore the sats are measuring at their centre frequency at halfway down Everest.
Are you trying to tell me that channel 5 cannot receive microwaves from O2 right to the surface, if that was desired?
UAH does not use it right to the surface due to spurious microwave frequencies being emitted at the surface. The question arises as to exactly how low they get. It’s a lot lower than 4 km.
I know Binny will chirp in about some formula and how the AMSU receivers are no longer used. The important thing is that Roy, the expert, claims they are used but that two other channels have been added to enable them to isolate the readings into cells.
Interesting that the average comes from a third of the way to the stratosphere, and they are getting two-thirds of the surface trend, don’t you think.
Do you really believe that having SOME contribution from lower latitudes completely overrides the contribution from higher latitudes?
swannie…the shyster…misquotes the UAH report…which actually is using a model to represent radiosonde data to satellite comparisons…
Shyster Swannie wants us to believe his drivel that the sat record is derived from guesses based on models.
Swannie Shyster claims…
” We shall also examine TMT as produced from homogenized radiosonde datasets and Reanalyses
In other words, they are comparing the TMT with SIMULATED data sets, as they describe on page 6,
for the calculation of the satellite temperature through a radiative transfer model
***
whereas the UAH paper claims…
“The IGRA station-by-station, (usually) twice-daily radiosonde data (temperature and humidity) on all reporting levels are vertically interpolated to 61 prescribed pressure levels for the calculation of the satellite temperature through a radiative transfer model…”
Nice try Swannie, but we are onto you after your outright denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
As usual, the ignorant liar Robertson lies again:
” I know Binny will chirp in about some formula and how the AMSU receivers are no longer used. The important thing is that Roy, the expert, claims they are used but that two other channels have been added to enable them to isolate the readings into cells. ”
This is a lie, but Robertson lies everywhere about everything, even about what Newton wrote in his Principia Scientifica.
*
Robertson, I repeat for the umpteenth time:
The LT data published by the UAH team is since 2015 no longer based on direct evaluation of O2 microwave emission.
This is due to the impossibility to provide for correct LT data at grid point level.
For this reason, the LT data is since then constructed out of a mix of MT, TP and LS data, according to the formula
LT = 1.538*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS
This is easy to prove by comparing the published LT data with a mix of the published MT/TP/LS data, regardless what you compare
– the 27 series
or
– any subset of the grid, even a single grid cell.
Example: the Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
Such comparisons you are not even able to do by yourself, what is a definite proof that you never were an engineer in your whole life.
*
You can tell your lying rubbish as long as you want, Robertson.
You are wrong, and perfectly know that, just as you also perfectly know that you permanently lie about what Isaac Newton wrote.
“RLH, What’s your point?”
That when trying to suggest the bulk temperature of the atmosphere (which is what we are all trying to do isn’t it?) then the same ‘errors’ or ‘uncertainty’ will exist no matter if you are using values derived from 2m thermometers (and quite poor sampling of 70% of the actual surface of the globe) looking upwards or ones derived from higher layers looking downwards.
Have you not heard of Boundary Layers, how they change day and night, over the land and the ocean, and what they mean?
https://wasatchweatherweenies.blogspot.com/2017/10/lessons-in-boundary-layer-meteorology.html
RLH:
“That when trying to suggest the bulk temperature of the atmosphere (which is what we are all trying to do isnt it?)”
No.
Enhanced greenhouses have no effect on the average temperature of the earth-atmosphere system. They increase the surface temperature and cool the upper atmosphere. We are mainly interested in the increasing surface temperatures, not the “bulk temperature”.
As suggested previously, take up making and selling shirts.
Old Gordo is confused as usual. My poorly edited quotes were taken directly from the report and point out that they compare the UAH MT v6 with the radiosonde data and model results by first converting those data sets to simulated MT series.
Indeed, Gordo’s quote says that directly:
Also, as I noted, they don’t apply a similar conversion to those data sets using radiative transfer models based on the RSS, STAR and UWash approaches.
Since Gordo again has nothing to offer, he reverts to vicious ad hominem attacks, as usual. And, he still can’t understand radiation heat transfer which tells us that a body which can emit thermal IR radiation at a wavelength will also absorb at that wavelength, no matter the temperature of the source. That does not violate the 2nd Law and that fact also applies to gasses, including CO2 and the O2 molecule emissions measured by the MSU and AMSU.
“No.”
So you are not interested in the bulk air temperature but instead with only cherry picking the hottest value there is.
SB: Is that day time or night time values and over which surface?
https://wasatchweatherweenies.blogspot.com/2017/10/lessons-in-boundary-layer-meteorology.html
studentb says:
January 5, 2023 at 8:51 PM
RLH:
That when trying to suggest the bulk temperature of the atmosphere (which is what we are all trying to do isnt it?)
No.
Enhanced greenhouses have no effect on the average temperature of the earth-atmosphere system. They increase the surface temperature and cool the upper atmosphere. We are mainly interested in the increasing surface temperatures, not the bulk temperature.
With enhanced greenhouse effect in equalibrium the apparent radiating temperature of the planet doesn’t change as viewed from space, but the net energy in the planet system is increased.
Your a bit thick really aren’t you. The temperature changes, the climate fraud is just another corporate money making scheme.
Wake up and see the corrupt world as it is.
“Seriously we are 0.05C above a 40 year average and you want me to be concerned.”
Europe 2 degrees C warming in 40 y.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/europe/land/36/11/1880-2022?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1980&endtrendyear=2022
Dear Dr. Spencer-san:
I realize you are extremely busy, but it would be most appreciated if you could kindly provide an updated comparative graph between CMIP6.0 projected computer model average global temperature anomalies vs. UAH6.0 values, and weather ballon values in some future post on your blog.
The disparity between climate model projections vs, reality now seem to far exceed 2 standard deviations for over 30 years which seems to mean the CAGW hypothesis has been effectively disconfirmed.
Thank you in advance for your kind consideration in putting this together.
Go to the “Climate Lab Book” website.
Look at the post “Comparing CMIP5 @ observations”
You will find that the fit is much better than you claim.
The heaviest rainfall is now occurring in the California Valley near Sacramento, where the threat of flooding is increasing.
Arctic cyclone hits west coast of US. Large amounts of snow will fall in the mountains and rain in the lowlands in California. More fronts with precipitation will come in from the north.
https://i.ibb.co/4JFT167/pobrane.png
Another cyclone from the north is approaching the US west coast.
https://i.ibb.co/x2yW6YT/mimictpw-alaska-latest.gif
Could last January’s Tonga-Hunga eruption have contributed to 2022 being “the 7th Warmest of 44-Year Satellite Record.
Ya betcha!
Now try explaining that to the cult idiots that believe ice cubes can boil water….
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/sun/nasa-mission-finds-tonga-volcanic-eruption-effects-reached-space
Please point out where in the article it says that the earth was warmed, or even that the water vapour remained up there.
Yeah AQ, I noticed the same thing. But you’ve got to remember, this is NASA-Goddard. They’re not going to allow anything to warm Earth except CO2. They don’t even recognize Sun’s contribution!
Large pressure disturbances and record-setting winds but “there’s nothing to see here, move along”. And the cult idiots will instantly obey.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Which of those effects are not attributable to La Nina?
Both.
Do go on …
???
EXPLAIN
You seem to believe you can get away with unsubstantiated assertions.
You don’t understand “both”?
That’s right – BOTH need substantiation.
I’m not sure you understand what you’re asking, AQ.
Are you asking why “large pressure disturbances and record-setting winds” aren’t caused by La Niña?
Indeed I am. Go for it.
“Large pressure disturbances and record-setting winds require mucho energy.
La Niña ain’t an energy source.
Nor is water vapour. But they both can redirect energy.
Ice cubes can redirect energy, AQ.
You really don’t understand any of this.
I guess they can. What’s your point? You’re supposed to be arguing for why water vapour could be the ONLY explanation, not adding new possibilities. Please explain so that I DO understand.
I’m not arguing any such thing.
You don’t understand ANY of this.
You have strongly (and deliberately) implied that extra water vapour has caused “large pressure disturbances and record-setting winds”. And now you’re going to try to spin your way out of it.
All wrong, AQ.
Misrepresenting me and falsely accusing me, repeatedly, makes you just another braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
And, that makes you easily ignorable.
Apparently you believe you are neither a troll nor anonymous.
And despite calling me ‘ignorable’ you have not yet been able to ignore me.
One of the tactics trolls use is to make a false accusation that triggers me to respond. So, it is always my choice as to whether I will respond or ignore.
Since you have proven yourself to be a troll, I will typically ignore your comments that contain insults, false accusations, or misrepresentations.
Thanks for replying, therefore confirming that my comments have no insults, false accusations, or misrepresentations.
“Could last Januarys Tonga-Hunga eruption have contributed to 2022 being the 7th Warmest of 44-Year Satellite Record.
Ya betcha!”
Except that the global average temperature for Jan-Feb-Mar that year was cooler than the previous 3 months and cooler than the subsequent 3 months.
Simple analysis therefore suggests a cooling effect – if any at all.
I suggest you stick to engineering, or farming, or selling shirts.
The physics would indicate a lag, clearly obvious by March.
Love how people refer to just “the physics” as a blank-filler.
“I assert there could be only one reason for what I observe, and as I need this particular time lag to match my assertion I will also assert the ‘the physics’ supports this time lag … QED”
Heads up – after Pinatubo and El Chichon it took almost a year for the sulphur dioxide to envelope the globe and initiate cooling. Please explain what you know about the physics of water vapour which would cause a lag only 20% as long. Be specific now …
No false accusations allowed, AQ.
You’re welcome to try again. Just drop the troll tactics.
So someone who used troll tactics in his opening comment gets to avoid explaining something he can’t explain be hypocritically demanding that no one else may use his language, is that how it works?
I don’t mind discussing the science, but I no longer waste time with cult idiots.
Youre welcome to try again. Just clean up your comments by ending the troll tactics.
You have no answer – got it. Perhaps don’t make it up on the fly next time.
Well, you had three chances AQ. You just couldn’t handle it.
Better luck next time.
(Hint: Maturity helps.)
Yep – if you had the maturity not to begin a discussion with “cult idiots” then maybe people would not respond in kind, and MAYBE people would treat your claims a little more seriously.
Anyway, barring any evidence to the contrary, we can now state with near certainty that there is no reason water vapour would not be subject to the same 12-month lag as SO2, and as a result there was no warming in 2022 due to the eruption.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1424387
https://climateball.net/but-abc#volcanoes
Enjoy, Clint:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00618-z
Dang, Brandon got something right! Kudos!
Yes, Tonga-Hunga resulted in warming. It was NOT a typical volcano, which results in cooling. The warming was NOT due to radiative issues, but we don’t need to go there now.
What’s important now is that the trolls end up with their feet in their mouths. And, there won’t be any recognition that they were wrong. That’s why they can’t learn.
The abstract, and the paper, clearly state that the warming was due to radiative effects of water vapor. So I must be wrong. Dangit.
Correct Brandon, that’s what your cult claims. Without an understanding of the physics, you must decide if you want to believe it, or not.
(Hint: This is in the category of ice cubes boiling water.)
“The warming was NOT due to radiative issues, but we dont need to go there now.”
Sure we do. You’ve just thumbed up a study that says the warming was due to radiative forcing by water vapour. You’re cherry-picking the bits you like and never-minding the bits you don’t.
The stratospheric polar vortex is blocked over the Bering Sea by the accumulation of ozone in the region.
https://i.ibb.co/S6DbDFm/gfs-t10-nh-f24.png https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/01/06/1300Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-137.76,69.88,406
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUDLiEG9rRg
Roughly Scott say Fear is why people are worried
about climate change.
Scott says many crazy stuff.
But never imagined anyone was afraid of climate climate.
I might agree religious people are motivated by fear, and obviously
fear is used in brainwashing.
Maybe people are afraid of traveling faster than 20 mph.
I think that what people are actually afraid of, and it is dangerous
going faster than 20 mph.
Or 15 C is cold, how can being warmer than 15 C be something to be
afraid of. And most of land averages 10 C, and living in the ocean
could be scary.
–The UK could experience a spike in excess deaths this winter due to cold housing as temperatures plummet and sky-high energy bills force people to turn off their heating, experts and charities fear.
…
There were an estimated 8,500 deaths due to cold homes in the winter of 2019-20, according to analysis by the charity National Energy Action.
The UKHSA advises people to heat homes to at least 18C and keep bedroom windows closed at night.
https://inews.co.uk/news/concerns-higher-deaths-winter-temperatures-plummet-energy-bills-soar-2013300
18 C is too cold for me, and probably kill quite a few older and less healthy people.
–Hywind is being sold to the grid, not to the consumer but to the grid, for $0.25 per kilowatt-hour. Thats about four times the cost of fossil fuel electricity, and guess who is subsidizing the difference?
Yep. The poor UK taxpayer. At $0.25 per kWh, that electricity subsidy is costing the taxpayers just over $26 megabucks per year, about an eighth of a billion dollars over the five years of its existence hell of a deal.
This is the ugly reality of wind and solar. They are hugely subsidized by the taxpayers no matter where they are installed.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/05/the-wind-power-mirage/
[Plus they can’t provide power when it’s needed. Which is worse
than their high cost per KW hour]
Continues:
“Heres the bottom line:
In the US, the average electricity price to the consumer is on the order of $0.10 per kilowatt-hour.
The Manhattan Institute says that globally, weve subsidized wind/solar/biofuels to the tune of $5 trillion over 20 years.
Our World In Data says that globally, theyve delivered 9.12 petawatt-hours (1015 watt-hours) in 20 yrs.
Thats $0.55 per kilowatt-hour that weve thrown down a rat-hole.”
{and it’s not the worst of it.
When wasting this much money, Space power satellites look really good- 1/2 the price, and get power when you need it. But SPS in future could be cheaper than coal or natural gas.
I wouldn’t recommend SPS, now, if put money in space exploration, instead, it could make SPS cheaper, in less time.\
But for China, SPS, now, might be good idea- because they paying about $400 per ton of Coal, and they going to run out of coal, and they don’t seem to making much progress with nuclear power.
Related:
A potentially revolutionary solar harvester just left the planet
The 110-pound prototype will send back data on three unique energy projects.
By Andrew Paul | Published Jan 4, 2023 1:30 PM
https://www.popsci.com/technology/caltech-solar-energy-power-satellite-prototype-launch/
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“Following over a decade of research, including two years of testing origami-inspired components, a small prototype satellite designed to harvest solar energy launched yesterday morning aboard SpaceXs most recent Falcon 9 rocket launch in Cape Canaveral, Florida. If its initial experiments are successful, arrays similar to Caltechs Space Solar Power Demonstrator (SSPD) could one day beam essentially endless renewable energy back to Earth via microwave transmitters.”
And:
“Over the next few weeks and months, the roughly 110-pound prototype will send back data on three main projects. The Deployable on-Orbit ultraLight Composite Experiment (DOLCE) will test lightweight, foldable structures that can unfurl to collect sunlight. Meanwhile, ALBA (Italian for dawn), a collection of 32 different varieties of photovoltaic cells, will determine which could work best in the spaces extremely harsh environment. Finally, the Microwave Array for Power-transfer Low-orbit Experiment (MAPLE) will test microwave transmitters that may one day transmit the collected solar power via wireless electricity.”
So apparently some people are worried [terrified] that average global temperature will rise higher about 15 C.
Most of these people are living in a home which is kept at about 20 C.
A lot animals flee the colder seasons, or hibernate [so they don’t get too cold and/or starve from the lack of food].
Almost any life would like to be in temperature that Humans spend money on to keep warmer.
So warmer world is better for all life on Earth. And humans would spend less money heating their homes [and could kept the windows opened, more.] And humans like animals prefer move to warmer regions.
Europe’s average yearly temperature is about 9 C. China is about 8 C.
And India’s average temperature is about 25 C.
People in India are not fleeing because it’s too warm- India is one of most crowded places on Earth. If any Indian wanted colder average temperature, there is colder mountains in India- which are sparsely populated.
trouble posting…testing
Swannie, the 2nd law denier, comes up with even more ign.ora.nce of how sat telemetry works. Although the atmosphere layer monitored uses instruments that are centred mid-troposphere, around 4 km, they are capable of measuring O2 microwave radiation down to the surface.
If you look at the weighting functions, they reveal O2 emi.s.s.ions for channel 5 right to the surface. I don’t expect you to understand how an AMSU receiver works but it is right up my alley. I specialized in microwave at university.
Did they have microwaves when you attended university?
I guess you would have been an expert at reheating food.
Although I only have a block diagram to work with, I am completely aware of how the circuits work. The input has an RF amplifier that feeds a heteordyning mixer. The pur.pose of such a mixer is to receive a broad band of frequencies, then use a local oscillator to beat against those frequencies to produce a much lower intermediate frequency.
The resultant of the mixer output is another broad range of much lower frequencies.
So, if what you claim is correct, that the AMSU units only receive data from 4 km altitude, why would the AMSU units need a broad band of input frequencies?
Sorry about the messed up post, I could not post rest of message due to Internal Error warnings.
Don’t worry. It is so off-topic that nobody cares.
— Both engineers and scientists want to understand the world and both want to solve problems. Engineers worry about how much something costs. Scientists dont worry about the cost; they just want the truth. So, the difference between an engineer and a scientist is that an engineer at least has some common sense.
Theres been a lot of discussion about the differences between scientists and engineers. The boundaries can get blurry and often are non-existent. In the energy power system arena, perhaps to my past professors chagrin, Im afraid the more important boundary might be between academics and practicing engineers. Academics can approach the grid with some detachment while practicing engineers must keep it running 24/7/365. Practicing engineers have skin in the game and typically face consequences for errors and shortcomings, while academics and unfortunately many policy makers are more insulated. This brings to mind Thomas Sowells guidance, It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.–
https://judithcurry.com/2023/01/04/academics-and-the-grid-part-i-i-dont-think-that-study-means-what-you-think-it-means/#more-29590
testing
Problems again with Internal Server errors.
You’ve got it wrong gb. The proper title for an engineer is Bachelor of Applied Science for an undergraduate degree. They also have Master of Applied Science and there is a Ph.D degree in engineering. All of our profs were Ph.Ds and I had at least one teaching assistant (TA) who had a Ph. D in civil engineering.
Before you apply science, you must first learn science.
The bs being spread in here about engineering is not even close. We took the same courses as science student excep.t at the honours level and with a more intense format.
Good to see you replying to yourself to remind yourself of that.
By ‘science’ Robertson actually means denial of science, no matter what the science is about.
That’s why some people on this blog gullibly follow his nonsense.
Indeed – he figures that if he doesn’t understand science then the problem must be with science and not him. Classic Dunning-Kruger.
I even had a conversation a while back on his own field, electrical engineering. He wasn’t aware that the same problem could be considered in either the time domain or the frequency domain. He tried to argue that only he was looking at it the right way, when in fact both ways were equivalent.
Ignoring the two common themes here he has also denied relativity, quantum mechanics, the usefulness of non-inertial forces, bootstrapping (statistics), and the reason for the moon’s phases. Can you think of others? Pretty sure evolution would be in there, but I can’t specifically recall a conversation.
I forgot to mention … the concept of an average.
Antonin Qwerty
” Pretty sure evolution would be in there… ”
Yes, it is, as well as e.g. viruses.
*
His denial of Moon’s rotation goes well beyond confused explanations of the lunar phases, and is worth a lengthy extra note because it even goes as far as outright denial of Newton’s own words, allegedly misrepresented by wrong translations from some ‘old’ Latin.
This despite the fact that this translation was made from the same original text of the third edition (1726):
https://books.google.de/books?id=6EqxPav3vIsC&pg=PA238&redir_esc=y&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false
by several different persons, among them for example
– 1726-29: Andrew Motte, Principia’s first translator;
– 1745-49: the French mathematician, physicist and philosopher Emilie du Châtelet;
– 1872: the German professor Jakob Philipp Wolfers.
*
Being 100 % fluent in both French and German, along with a smattering of English, it was easy for me to convince myself that all three translations from the ‘old’ Latin were perfectly similar and correct.
*
{ Motte’s translation was the best of all because he enriched Newton’s main texts with very helpful, sometimes indispensable additions from his footnotes (all typeset in italic of course) }.
*
It should be evident to us that Newton’s work must have been translated in several other languages, beginning with e.g. … Russian!
*
Sources for Book III, Prop. XVII, Th. XV
– Motte
https://books.google.de/books?id=6EqxPav3vIsC&pg=PA238&redir_esc=y&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false
– Châtelet
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k290387/f39.item
– Wolfers ( 21 (‘Lehrsatz’) on page 399, i.e. 414 in the pdf file)
https://ia902704.us.archive.org/24/items/mathematischepr00newtgoog/mathematischepr00newtgoog.pdf
Ooops?! Even the ASCII character ‘§’ is not printed…
Bindidon, you’re the first to bring up Moon on this new Spencer post. You’re obsessed with your cult’s nonsense.
You’re obsessed, but you’ve got NOTHING. Misinterpreting Newton and quoting ancient astrologers ain’t science. Science is having a viable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Without such a model, you’ve got NOTHING.
"Bindidon, you’re the first to bring up Moon on this new Spencer post."
He usually is. Yet we get the blame for it.
Gentle Graham leaves the “we” indeterminate.
Does it include Gordo?
Does it include Bill too?
"Non-Spinners" get the blame for the moon discussion, as if "Spinners" have no part in it. They’re apparently forced to debate it, against their will.
First person to mention the spin of the moon in each of the last 30 monthly reports (not including those who were merely complaining about the endless drivel without stating an opinion):
DREMT 6
Gordon 5
Bindidon 4
Entropic Man 3
Bill Hunter 3
Norman 3
(no mention) 2
angech 1
Willard 1
svante 1
ClintR 1
Pretty much even between "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners", then.
” Bindidon, you’re the first to bring up Moon on this new Spencer post.
He usually is. Yet we get the blame for it. ”
*
No I didn’t, as you clearly can see: I only replied Antonin Qwerty’s comment about the endlessly lying ignoramus nicknamed Robertson.
It was your deliberate choice, Clint R and Pseudomod, to reply, though there was absolutely no need to do.
I won’t add anything to this. We’ll see how you two behave…
That’s right, Bindidon, it was my choice to reply…and it’s the "Spinners" choice to debate the issue just as much as the "Non-Spinners". No one side is better than the other in this.
DREMT
As you try to gloss over your own contribution by hiding amongst the group.
Not at all. If I started it the most times, I started it the most times. Fair enough. At least one of those times, I was just promoting my song…but I suppose it still counts.
I honestly thought Bindidon had started the debate off far more times than I had. Perhaps he has, when you include the articles outside the monthly reports.
I saw no mention of a song. As I was doing a search for ‘moon’, you probably provided a link without an introduction. In which case your count should be incremented and someone else’s should be reduced. And I should go looking for the post and reply with your standard hackneyed response.
Lol, OK.
” He usually is. Yet we get the blame for it. ”
Aha.
*
Here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1409139
the Pseudomod can see himself being the very first one to comment on the lunar spin.
*
And here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1402831
I did not mention the ‘ball-on-a-string-ist’ with the intention to start that discussion; I just described Clint R as he views himself (” Keep It Simple, Stupid “).
*
And here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/the-warming-that-happens-in-vegas-stays-in-vegas/#comment-1396440
I again did not start that discussion but gave a hint on how Robertson insults even Newton’s best translator.
*
And here
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1392065
we clearly see again who was suddenly talking about the Moon unable to spin…
*
Need some more hints, Pseudomod?
"the Pseudomod can see himself being the very first one to comment on the lunar spin."
I was not the first one to comment on the lunar spin under that article, though.
Your other examples seem to be between you and Gordon. Not sure what hints I’m supposed to be taking from it…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1408116
That is the first mention of the moon issue under last month’s temperature update. It was you, Bindidon! You used the phrase “lunar spin” and not “moon”, which means Antonin would have falsely counted last month’s update as one of mine, instead of yours. So Antonin’s count is most likely wrong, anyway. He needed to search for “lunar” as well, not just “moon”, to see who started the discussion.
Tut, tut.
[GENTLE GRAHAM] If I started it the most times
[ANTONIN] Here are the stats that shows he does.
Yes, apparently so. Although, we’ve just discovered that one of the times Antonin would have put down as me, it should have gone to Bindidon.
Making the stats even between me and Bindidon.
And so Gentle Graham can’t bring himself to correct Pup.
Twas not Binny this time.
Antonin mentioned "the moon’s phases" which is what triggered Bindidon to mention "His denial of Moon’s rotation goes well beyond confused explanations of the lunar phases".
So I guess we can put this month’s down to Antonin rather than Bindidon.
🤦
Wow the non-spinners eke out a narrow margin vs the sheeple.
What’s the problem with that?
C’mon, Bill.
My question was direction to Little Willy…
Willard says:
Cmon, Bill.
—————————
Little Willy must also deny that the moon rotates around the earth. . . .but the jury is out on which side he is on.
"My question was direction to Little Willy…"
I meant, "directed to Little Willy".
"…but the jury is out on which side he is on"
That’s true, Bill. Little Willy argues that "orbital motion" is a mix of rotation and translation. So of the two possible options, he can only really be describing "orbit without spin" as motion like the "moon on the left".
Since I believe the Moon spins, Moon Dragon cranks ought to realize that their inclusion perhaps their criteria is wrong.
Now, we know that Gordo holds that the Moon translates. What about Bill?
Here is what I mean by the “moon on the left”, for anyone that didn’t know:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Little Willy claims that he believes the moon spins, but some of his other statements would put him in the “Non-Spinner” camp. So, as Bill says, the jury is still out…
Here is where Gentle Graham left the field last time:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1421943
Since the Moon Dragon cranks have refuted fair and square with a very simple argument, gaslighting is to be expected, like pretending I do not believe that the Moon spins.
Yes, that discussion was a good example of Little Willy’s abject confusion on the issue, and total failure to understand basic kinematics. Here’s a good video, by the way:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw
Apart from a mistake at about 0:40, where the narrator says the orbital motion and axial rotation are diametrically opposite, when they are actually in the same direction, the video is a good demonstration of the motions from the “Non-Spinner” POV.
aquerty…”Good to see you replying to yourself to remind yourself of that”.
***
Had you the least amount of comprehension you would have seen I was having trouble posting due to incessant Internal Server error. However, expecting you to read more than a few words before rushing to offer ad homs, insults, and red herring arguments, is a bit much.
Gentle Graham gently gaslights a little more.
The CSA Truther’s video is obviously a dud, which has already been covered elsewhere:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1414051
There’s also a singular tension between what the CSA Truther concludes and his own conclusions:
https://tinyurl.com/dragon-cranks-honey-trap#comment-1405871
After having exchanged for a few of his 77 months of trolling this website, it always ends up the same with Gentle Graham. Either he’s misrepresented or his opponents misunderstand. In the latter case his opponents make no sense.
aquerty….”First person to mention the spin of the moon in each of the last 30 monthly reports…”
***
Why don’t you spend some time learning physics, and science in general, rather than wasting time with mental drivel?
Little Willy is welcome to have his say…but the video speaks for itself. "Let the readers decide".
Gordon
It took me 15 minutes. How many THOUSANDS of hours have you wasted commenting here and on other denial sites?
Excuse me if I laugh at being told that I need to learn physics by a person who believes in the buffet concept of accepting and rejecting physics.
Perhaps if you hadn’t wasted so much time here you would have learned that it is NOT the earth’s shadow which causes the phases of the moon.
BTW Gordon – I like the way you spelled your name here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1424206
Sigmund says you almost nailed it!
I prefer this spelling, AQ:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1424137
dremt…”Thats true, Bill. Little Willy argues that “orbital motion” is a mix of rotation and translation”.
***
Not possible. The Earth translates and rotates on its orbit, and from a viewpoint within the orbit, one would see all sides of the Earth 365 times a year.
C’mon, Bordo.
We’ve just been over this.
I think Little Willy was referring to “orbital motion without axial rotation” when he described it as consisting of both rotation and translation, Gordon. Of the two options, “moon on the left” or “moon on the right”, that could only be the MOTL.
Making Little Willy a secret “Non-Spinner”.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
He won’t tell Bordon that his “The Earth translates and rotates on its orbit” does not cohere with the video he cited in this subthread.
🤷
Gordon sees “translation in a circle, without rotation about an internal axis” as being motion like the MOTL, whereas most people see it as being motion like the MOTR.
Everyone should agree (including “Spinners”, and some do agree), that “rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis”, is motion like the MOTL. It’s one of the four points that remain correct regardless of who’s right overall about the moon issue, namely:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
2) “Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL.
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
4) “Revolution/orbit” is defined as “rotation about an external axis”.
Funnily enough, there is at least one “Spinner” commenting here who has agreed with each of the four points, although there are none that agree with all four at once.
#4 is a Zombie.
A thoroughly debunked lie that should have died long ago, but is endlessly resurrected by shameless people.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1422948
I will leave these here, in support of point 4), just in case anyone should question it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“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.”
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/circular-motion-and-rotational-mechanics/rotation-and-revolution/
“It is important to understand the difference between rotations and revolutions. When an object turns around an internal axis (like the Earth turns around its axis) it is called a rotation. When an object circles an external axis (like the Earth circles the sun) it is called a revolution.”
…and I will note that sources where “revolution/orbit” is defined as just a path, or trajectory, support the “Non-Spinners” just as much as they support the “Spinners”. After all, I agree completely that an object that is orbiting is moving in a path, or trajectory, around another object.
Notice how easily the LIE
‘Is DEFINED as a rotation’ , morphs into
So what if DEFINITIONs don’t mention rotation at all,
they still ‘support’ our belief.
As an aside, I’m sure readers will notice that "Spinners" seem to think definitions that don’t mention translation at all, still somehow support their belief.
Whilst they have to try desperately hard to rationalize away the existence of definitions that do mention rotation…
There is indeed a switch from an assertion to a conditional, Nate. Gentle Graham almost always argue with a Motte and Bailey. The assertion is the Motte, and the conditional is the Bailey.
But do not forget that his Bailey contains an implicit trick. He defines a revolution by a rotation alone, or as a pure rotation. Without that pure rotation, his 1+1 trick does not work.
Hence why Bordon is wrong in his proof too, incidentally.
Just a reminder that self-appointed authority figure, Tim Folkerts PhD, agrees that movement like the MOTL can be described as consisting of "one motion". Let’s break that down…
There are two separate and independent motions that have always been at the heart of the moon discussion:
1) Orbital motion.
2) Axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis).
Tim has said that the movement of the MOTL can be described as consisting of "one motion". Therefore he concedes that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own internal axis, but only orbiting (unless he is saying that the MOTL is not orbiting, but is only rotating on its own internal axis – I think we can reject that option!)
So now it’s up to Tim what kinematics he uses to describe the motion "orbiting". It’s kind of irrelevant…he’s conceded that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own axis.
End of story.
Just a reminder that Gentle Graham gently gaslights once more.
A complex motion is one motion. And without that complex motion, Moon Dragon cranks cannot explain or even model the motion of the Moon properly. Which is the point that Mighty Tim keeps making and that Gentle Graham keeps evading,
Here is where he left off the last time:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1421268
Inescapable logic is called "gaslighting" by Little Willy.
"A complex motion is one motion. And without that complex motion, Moon Dragon cranks cannot explain or even model the motion of the Moon properly."
The "one motion" Tim refers to can be as complex as he wishes. Indeed, as I said, he can use whatever kinematics he wishes to describe it.
To portray a point refuted a thousand times as inescapable is indeed gaslighting.
Let us refute it once again.
Let Bordon move around a table while fixing his eyes on its center.
As he walks parallel to the table, he translates. That is, he orbits.
As he looks at the table his head turns. That is, it spins.
One motion. One complex motion. Very, very tough to understand for Moon Dragon cranks.
The *only* argument Gentle Graham clings to is that the orbit could also be described as a rotation. This equivalence *only* works with circular orbits, but whatever. We can grant him that. Mighty Tim did.
What he tries to run away with is that this proves Moon Drwgon cranks right. It does not. All it shows is that Gentle Graham gently gaslights furthermore.
Lol. Little Willy’s attempt to refute the point is by suggesting that the two separate and independent motions, "orbital motion" and "axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis" are one motion!
I’ve never seen anything so desperate and pathetic in all my life.
Poor Gentle Graham. According to his own Holy Madhavi, a complex motion can be described by a series of rotations and translations. Does it mean he is now lulzing at his own Holy Madhavi?
No, it means he is gently gaslighting once again.
You are completely confused, beyond belief. I think it’s deliberate, though. You’re only acting.
Forget about kinematics for the minute, Little Willy. You don’t understand it (or at least, you act like you don’t, in an attempt to confuse the issue as much as possible).
Let’s get back to basics.
There are two separate and independent motions that have always been at the heart of the moon debate:
1) Orbital motion.
2) Axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis).
Tim has said that the movement of the MOTL can be described as consisting of "one motion".
That means he concedes that the MOTL can be described as "not rotating on its own internal axis", and only doing motion 1).
As predicted, Gentle Graham has now reached the gaslighting stage.
At least he now wastes less time reaching it.
His trick is quite simple – he conflates his analytical tools with reality.
What needs to be explained is what the Moon does.
Not his silly GIF.
The Moon.
To do that, we need physics.
Gentle Graham forfeited that point. He prefers to cling to geometry instead. Which is fair, since he sucks less at it than at physics. He does not call Tim Mighty Tim for nothing. Tim spanked him a few times over the years.
BUT EVEN ON GEOMETRY GRAHAM SUCKS TO NO END.
As soon as he conceded the complex motion point he lost. And now he clings to some weird idea that a complex motion *cannot* have independent parts.
Let us hope he never tried a Ferris wheel!
Which of the two possible motions under discussion do you consider to be the "complex motion", Little Willy?
1) Orbital motion.
2) Axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis).
Now watch Little Willy do anything in his power to avoid answering this question.
Gentle Graham is caught between a rock and a hard place.
Either he concedes that his Holy Madhavi indeed defines a complex motion as a series of rotations and translations, or he accepts that the Moon needs to be explained using physics and that his pet GIF was meant for that.
Either way, he will be gaslighting. He has yet to find other ways to tergiversate.
Now watch Little Willy do anything in his power to avoid answering this question…
Gentle Graham *cannot* concede that his own Holy Madhavi defines a complex motion as a series of translations and rotations.
Which is understandable, for she would recognize the 1+1 trick behind his false choice.
A search of the Madhavi document returns no results for the word "complex".
Perhaps Little Willy is again confused by "General Plane Motion". That can be considered as a combination of translation plus rotation. For instance, a translation of the body in a circle plus a rotation about the internal axis of the body. This would still be considered two motions, though, in the context we are discussing. One of the motions would be the "Spinners" concept of "orbit without spin" (the translation in a circle), and the other motion would be the axial rotation (the rotation about the internal axis). To describe that as one single motion would make the distinction between "orbit" and "spin" meaningless. Perhaps that is Little Willy’s intent.
Now watch Little Willy continue to do anything in his power to avoid answering the question I asked him.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
The Moon orbits. It also spins. Two independent motions.
The 1+1 trick assumes that the two motions are dependent.
Thus it concludes that they cannot.
Either Gentle Graham is a genius or he sucks at logic.
My money is on the latter.
> that they cannot
be independent, that is.
So, for those in the back, Gentle Graham posits that the orbit comes with a spin.
Once we realize that this assumption begs some physics, the whole Moon Dragon crank appeal to geometry falls down.
"The Moon orbits. It also spins. Two independent motions."
Yet Tim has conceded that motion like the MOTL (which, of the two options, moves most like our moon) can be described as "one motion". That’s the point that you cannot refute, Little Willy.
Tim then goes on to posit that because the orbit is elliptical, etc etc, it only makes sense to describe the real moon’s movement as consisting of two motions.
He is ignoring the point that you are inadvertently raising, however, which is that the real moon’s movement could still be described as consisting of one single, but complex, motion. "Orbital motion".
…and that’s probably why you avoided answering my question.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
There is no problem in accepting any assumption as long as it is not self-contradictory. That includes the one according the Moon orbits in a way that *includes* eo ipso the spin. That is, that the Moon really moves like a ball on string.
Moon Dragon cranks can posit that or anything else they please, as long as they do something with it.
Do they?
No.
Henceforth Gentle Graham has yet to meet the challenge offered by Mighty Tim.
"That includes the one according the Moon orbits in a way that *includes* eo ipso the spin"
The argument is not that the moon is orbiting in a way that includes the spin. Orbit and spin are two separate things. You still don’t get it, do you?
And so Gentle Graham returns to silly word games.
The 1+1 argument is that once you do a rotation to represent the orbit of the Moon, it *cannot* spin, as adding one rotation to another rotation entails that the Moon would not show the same face to the Earth. Thus the orbit comes with the spin. Just like a ball on the string.
Which only works if one assumes that to rotate around an external axis implies that the axial orientation of the Moon follows along. Just like the CSA Truther trick.
Orbit and spin are not independent.
*This* is the assumption. It is far from being necessary. Without it, the 1+1 argument falls apart.
To support that assumption, Moon Dragon cranks would need to do what they fear most.
Physics.
Cue to gentle Graham trying to argue that his model is better because he is simpler or whatnot.
"The 1+1 argument is that once you do a rotation to represent the orbit of the Moon, it *cannot* spin, as adding one rotation to another rotation entails that the Moon would not show the same face to the Earth. Thus the orbit comes with the spin. Just like a ball on the string."
Mostly wrong, Little Willy. The orbit does not come with the spin. The orbit is one motion, spin is a separate motion. It just so happens, that in the case of the moon, it is only orbiting.
So simple…so impossible for Little Willy to comprehend.
Gentle Graham gaslights once again.
It is easy to notice when he starts cranking up –
Notice the number of negative claims.
Tis no this.
It is NOT that.
And not that either.
No.
No no.
Nonononono.
What a lousy conversationalist, that Gentle Graham.
So simple…so impossible for Little Willy to comprehend.
I’ve used him as an excuse to write out a few comments that might help readers understand the issues better, but it’s getting to the point where he’s outlived his usefulness.
As always, with Little Willy, it will inevitably have to end with a PST. Otherwise he’ll just keep on with the false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults, indefinitely.
Gentle Graham gaslights and gaslights and gaslights.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1186788
Gentle Graham will never learn.
“As an aside, Im sure readers will notice that “Spinners” seem to think definitions that dont mention translation at all, still somehow support their belief.”
Which is a different and debunked issue, and a distraction from whether or not this
“4) ‘Revolution/orbit’ is defined as ‘rotation about an external axis'”
is a LIE. It still is.
Those posting it KNOW that there are no dictionary DEFINITIONS of Orbit that DEFINE it this way.
Yet they keep trying to mislead by posting it.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard says:
Let Bordon move around a table while fixing his eyes on its center.
As he walks parallel to the table, he translates. That is, he orbits.
As he looks at the table his head turns. That is, it spins.
—————————
This is hilarious! Borton’s body is translating while his head spins. LOL!
A complex single motion? ROTFLMAO!
So, Gill, have you found the authoritative translation of the Principia?
Exactly, Bill. You have to laugh, really. Then, eventually, once he’s outlived his usefulness, PST (otherwise he just won’t stop).
No more funny than the claim that our Moon’s orbit and spin is ONE MOTION.
Just a reminder that self-appointed authority figure, DREMT, never accurately states my position.
I correctly state the logical consequences of what you’ve said, Tim.
Gentle Graham gaslights once more.
DREMT, you are playing with words, not with science.
‘Circular motion is a rotation.’
‘A rotation is a revolution.’
‘A revolutions is an orbit.’
‘An orbit is one motion.’
‘A rotation is another motion.’
‘The MOTL is one motion.’
‘An orbit can be an ellispe.’
You mingle different meanings to suit your immediate goals, without looking at a coherent whole.
MOTR is ALSO ‘one motion’. Put your fingertip on the disk and trace your finger in a circle. You get MOTR.
Furthermore, move your finger in an ellipse and you ALSO get a correct orbit with a legitimate orientation for a moon. You simply can’t do that with ‘one motion’ for a rotation (or even some sort of ‘stretched rotation’).
The best, simplest ‘base motion’ is MOTR — the orbit is simply the path of the Center of Mass. There is an ‘added motion’ for the change in orientation relative to the CoM.
I’ll break up my response, as it’s not posting, for some reason.
"DREMT, you are playing with words, not with science."
False accusation.
"You mingle different meanings to suit your immediate goals, without looking at a coherent whole."
False accusation.
"MOTR is ALSO ‘one motion’…"
It can be considered to be one motion, if your way of looking at this issue is that of a "Spinner". Obviously, if you’re a "Non-Spinner", then movement like the MOTR is comprised of two motions. Presumably, you agree that movement like the MOTR can be considered to be two motions, since you agree that movement like the MOTL can be considered to be one motion. Yes?
> you are playing with words, not with science.
To be fair, that’s what Gentle Graham does best.
He sucks at word games, but that’s still what he does best.
Have you seen his music video?
Little Willy, please obsessively bully someone else. It’s getting really boring.
Gentle Graham could stop gaslighting every single commenter to whom he replies on this website except his cohort of sockpuppet trolls for a change.
I’ll behave as I always have done, indefinitely. There’s nothing you can do that will ever change that…
…and no, I don’t "gaslight".
“DREMT, you are playing with words, not with science.”
Yep that sums it up well.
And the overlapping but not equal meanings of words that are synonyms is used to mislead people, as DREMT does, and as Bill tried to do above.
So a word like rotate and revolution overlap, and revolution and orbit overlap, but they are not all equivalent, particularly in different contexts. But DREMT pretends that overlap is equivalence, when convenient to his narrative.
In the context of Astronomy, orbit has a standard meaning, and it does NOT mean rotation around an external axis.
And in Astronomy, it is generally agreed that the Moon is orbiting and rotating on its (tilted) axis. And DREMT agrees that his view of the Moon’s motion doesnt agree with Astronomy’s.
Astronomy’s definition of Orbit and understanding of the Moon’s orbit and spin are, naturally, consistent. If they werent, it would have been revised long ago.
So it really NEVER made sense that Astronomy would define Orbit the way DREMT wants it, while viewing the Moon’s orbit and rotation differently from DREMT.
And of course the evidence is clear they do not.
After having lost another round to Mighty Tim, Gentle Graham gently gaslights a little more.
Readers might appreciate how he’s trying to suggest that the Moon can really be seen as spinning.
Little Willy, as usual, offers his totally biased opinion, whilst we wait for Tim to respond to my question.
You are right back playing with semantics, DREMT.
It really doesn’t matter what can be ‘considered’ to be ‘one motion’ or ‘two motions’. It doesn’t really matter how we can describe two cartoons.
Ultimately what matters is if you can accurately describe real moons in real elliptical orbits. If your theory predicts how a moon moves. Predicts ‘equal area in equal time’. Predicts how fast stars move across the sky as seen from the moon. Predicts libration.
And currently, you are still splitting semantics hairs, but you have never been able to extend your model beyond perfect animated circles.
Tim Folkerts says:
”DREMT, you are playing with words, not with science.”
Good lord Tim! It was spinners who tried to change the definition of rotation to not include orbits. And since there are a large number of robot scientists trying to elevate the form of their science over the substance of the world trying to change definitions of words and not having succeeded. . . .you are just pissed off that folks are pointing out that fact to you.
Tim, instead of making yet more false accusations, could you please answer the question?
Many thanks.
Bill somehow concludes: “It was spinners who tried to change the definition of rotation to not include orbits. ”
Rotations are circles.
Orbits are not circles.
Therefore orbits are not rotations.
It doesn’t get much simpler that that!
DREMT, the question is:
“Does a model accurately predict motions in the actual universe?”
Yours fails for anything but a perfectly circular orbit. If the animation for the “MOTL” was drawn accurately for the real moon in its real orbit, it would not be “one rotation about a central axis” Hence yours fails. It doesn’t matter what word you try to put with that failure; it is still a failure.
No, Tim. The question was:
“Presumably, you agree that movement like the MOTR can be considered to be two motions, since you agree that movement like the MOTL can be considered to be one motion. Yes?”
Please answer.
Many thanks.
Why does it matter what you or I or anyone else “consider” the two motions to be?
Mathematically, any motion can be the sum of multiple separate motions. Mathematically, both the animations can be described by “one operation” (ie a rotation about the center for MOTL and translation about the center for MOTR).
But still that is mathematics and definitions. It gets us no closer to explaining a real moon in a real orbit.
I can accurately explain any orbit using
* a translation of the CoM along an elliptical orbit.
* a rotation about the CoM at a constant rate.
You can accurately explain only perfectly circular obits using
* a rotation about an external axis.
* a second rotation about the CoM at a constant rate.
Why on earth would anyone want to take a model that explains every orbit and go backwards to your model?
Tim…why are you so opposed to just answering the simple question?
Now you have two questions to answer…
DREMT? Why are you so intent on ignoring the true issue, which is the motion of the moon? If you are only interested in describing animated pictures, what’s the point? Why worry about semantics of ‘considered one motion’?
Tim, the issue of whether the moon rotates on its own axis I personally find to be of only secondary importance. Maybe even tertiary importance. For one thing, it’s not actually about the moon at all, anyway. It’s about all orbital motion…but of far more interest to me than even that is how blinded people have become by their education and programming, to the extent that they’re unable to understand even the simplest of things any more, when those things go against the programming.
A great example was your recent inability to comprehend that because you had acknowledged the movement of the MOTL could be described as “one motion”, that necessarily meant it could be described as “not rotating on its own axis”…and thus the appropriate description was “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”. I still find it staggering that you cannot accept this. Simply incredible.
Issues 2) and 3) from my list of four points are kind of interrelated, as in once you accept 2) you should eventually come round to accepting 3). Accepting and understanding why the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames is I think of far more interest and value to science than answering the question itself of “does the moon rotate on its own axis?”
OK, so you now have a full and complete answer to your question. Please could you finally answer mine?
“but of far more interest to me than even that is how blinded people have become by their education and programming, to the extent that theyre unable to understand even the simplest of things any more, when those things go against the programming.”
And what is of interest to me is people who are ACTUALLY unable to understand the simplest things when it goes against uninformed intuition. You and many others seem to fall into this category.
“its not actually about the moon at all, anyway. Its about all orbital motion “
Exactly, which is why your model that ONLY applies to perfectly circular orbits is utterly useless.
“A great example was your recent inability to comprehend that because you had acknowledged the movement of the MOTL could be described as “one motion”, that necessarily meant it could be described as “not rotating on its own axis”.”
This is a self-own. That necessarily means MOTL can be described as not ADDITIONALLY rotating on its own axis. But by all standard definitions of ‘rotation’ and ‘axis’, the MOTL is rotating about that axis.
You seem to be conflating a pure mathematical ‘rotation about an axis’ with a physical ‘rotation on an axle’. A bike petal rotates relative to its physical shaft (ie the petal and shaft turn relative to each other). A bike petal does not rotate relative to it’s mathematical axis (ie a point on the petal that is 2 cm horizontally in front of the axis remains 2 cm horizontally in front of the axis). A petal that gets “frozen” would be the reverse — not rotating on its shaft, but rotating on its axis.
Tim, you are doing it again! I will repost from earlier:
There are two separate and independent motions that have always been at the heart of the moon discussion:
1) Orbital motion.
2) Axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis).
Tim has said that the movement of the MOTL can be described as consisting of "one motion". Therefore he concedes that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own internal axis, but only orbiting (unless he is saying that the MOTL is not orbiting, but is only rotating on its own internal axis – I think we can reject that option!)
So now it’s up to Tim what kinematics he uses to describe the motion "orbiting". It’s kind of irrelevant…he’s conceded that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own axis.
It’s that simple Tim. None of the contortions, distractions, false accusations, misrepresentations and insults you can possibly come out with will ever refute that logic. It’s done.
Now, please answer my question.
“There are two separate and independent motions that have always been at the heart of the moon discussion:
1) Orbital motion.
2) Axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis).”
Perfect! Lets start with the first motion you state — orbital motion. There are two hypotheses on the table:
1a) Orbital motion is a rotation about a central, external axis.
1b) Orbital motion is a translation about a central, external axis.
1a fails to be able to describe elliptical orbits, since rotations are by definition circles. (If you drop the requirement for a circle, then you have to explain all sorts of other details about how you stretch the orbit but not the moon or how the moon would be oriented).
1b works perfectly to explain elliptical orbits. Including the orientation of the moon throughout the orbit.
Well first of you are not holding your definition of a rotation, as a circle, to the same standard as you are trying to hold an ellipse.
Orbital motion was described as a uniform circular motion in three astronomical systems the Ptolemaic, Coperican, and Tychonic systems before the Keplerian version of the Copernican system was devised. So now you have circular orbits and elliptical orbits. So I suppose you think of some being rotations and some being translations. I would say describing an orbit as a circular motion is archaic unless you can find another argument to support that major difference in the classification of orbital motions.
And here are some counterpoints to all the spinner arguments with supporting sources:
1) ”Elliptical rotation is the motion of a point on an ellipse through some angle about a vector.”
https://tinyurl.com/2znbr677
There you go a definition of an ”elliptical rotation” .
And 2) Can a translating body have angular momentum? ”Yes, a body in translatory motion shell have angular momentum, unless the fixed point about which angular momentum is taken lies on the line of motion of the body. This follows from
|L|=rpsinϕL=0, only when ϕ=0∘orϕ=180∘.”
https://tinyurl.com/bd5fz2h5
You lose as the point about which orbital motion has angular momentum is not on the line motion (by definition of an orbit) and it is approximately equal to Lorb+Lspin and it is NOT equal to Lorb. You can’t split the correct equation up and still have translatory angular momentum. . . .a point you blockheads can’t seem to grok.
Tim dodges the point and evades answering the question for about the fifth time…
Bill states: “Orbital motion was described as a uniform circular motion in three astronomical systems the Ptolemaic, Coperican, and Tychonic systems”
Actually, it was described as a series of circles on circles (‘epicycles’) offset from the earth (the ‘eccentric’).
“I would say describing an orbit as a circular motion is archaic”
So would I. But that is DREMT’s model so far.
“There you go a definition of an “elliptical rotation” .”
Yes, I agree that it can be done — a combination of a rotation about the axis and a stretch away from the axis (so already this is ‘two motions’ and not ‘one motion’ in DREMT’s language). But it brings up all sorts of further issues. For example, does the same rule apply to all parts of the moon? Then the (‘non-rotating’ in DREMT’s language) moon would
a) keep the same face exactly toward the earth
b) stretch out 10% longer if it moved 10% farther away.
Both of these are wrong.
finally “You lose as the point about which orbital motion has angular momentum is not on the line motion (by definition of an orbit) and it is approximately equal to Lorb+Lspin and it is NOT equal to Lorb. ”
You seem to be agreeing with my position here!
1) I have argued there IS orbital angular momentum = rxp. Indeed, this is the theoretical basis for Kepler’s 2nd Law (equal areas).
2) Yes, there is ALSO spin angular momentum. For example, if a merry-go-round horse is bolted to a MGR, the angular momentum is NOT simply r x p (where r and v are measured at the COM), but indeed it is rxp + I(omega) (where I is measured about the COM and omega is the rotation rate of the platform). This is the ‘parallel axis theorem’.
The ONLY way to get the correct angular momentum is to include both the orbital angular momentum and the spin angular momentum.
“You cant split the correct equation up and still have translatory angular momentum”
Well you can. You can either:
1) find the ‘translatory’ angular momentum of the orbit (rxp for the COM) and add the angular momentum for the spin about the COM.
2) find the ‘translatory’ angular momentum for each dm that makes up the object and then integrate over the entire mass.
Choice 1) is usually MUCH easier since there are standard tables for moment of inertia for spheres, bars, rings, etc.
But both are possible and indeed the ‘parallel axis theorem’ proves they are the same [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_axis_theorem]. Something the ‘blockheads’ grokked long before you or I were born.
“…a combination of a rotation about the axis and a stretch away from the axis (so already this is ‘two motions’ and not ‘one motion’ in DREMT’s language)”
No, Tim, the two motions are:
1) Orbital motion.
2) Axial rotation (rotation about an internal axis).
Your problem is your inability to think outside the box of your programming. You don’t seem able to conceive of “one motion” in which the orbit is elliptical and yet the object keeps the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit. So you go into denial about two facts:
1) “Revolution/orbit” has been shown to be defined as a rotation about an external axis, and those defining it that way are perfectly aware that orbits are elliptical.
2) Desmos can be programmed to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical pattern.
Instead we get all sorts of hysteria from the usual suspects when those two points are mentioned, varying from false accusations of lying and spreading misinformation to false accusations of appealing to authority, and so on. The reality is that both points are true, and they conflict with your viewpoint, to the extent that your cognitive dissonance leads you to lash out with false accusations.
The three quotes on point 1) that I linked to earlier exist. You cannot simply “rationalize” them away into non-existence. Desmos can be programmed that way. That’s just a fact, that has been demonstrated…and I’m not even talking about the complex demonstration where libration of longitude, etc, was included. I’m talking about the simple demonstration where it was just a basic elliptical rotation about an external axis. It cannot be denied that Desmos has that functionality. You guys have to ask yourselves why that would be the case, if rotation about an external axis could not occur in an ellipse!
Now…for what’s probably the sixth time, can you please answer my question?
“It was spinners who tried to change the definition of rotation to not include orbits. ”
No Bill, YOU have seen, ad nauseum, that WE are using the standard definition. You guys want to use something else, but refuse to say what that is.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1423770
And this is YOU agreeing that the orbit of the MOTR is not a rotation
“I agree that the MOTR could be considered to be curvilinear motion.”
“Tim, the issue of whether the moon rotates on its own axis I personally find to be of only secondary importance.”
Indeed, now that DREMT has come to realize that, after 5 y of beating that dead horse, he has LOST that argument.
He has morphed it into a different, even more pointless, one.
DREMT has morphed the argument into a different, even more pointless, one that is irrelevant to the Moon.
I strongly suggest people not engage with him anymore on this pointless side issue.
Just to add, Tim – you “Spinners” seem to have this idea in your heads that a definition of “revolution/orbit” as being simply a path, or trajectory, supports your position. It doesn’t, any more than it supports the “Non-Spinners”. Of course an orbiting body follows a path, or trajectory, the entire debate is about what orientation the body has whilst following that path (and not spinning)! That clearly cannot be resolved by such definitions…
The “Spinners” need a definition that mentions translation, and the “Non-Spinners” need a definition that mentions rotation about an external axis. It just so happens that we’ve got exactly that!
I wonder if there will be any of that “hysteria” I mentioned by the time I post this…
“The Spinners need a definition that mentions translation and the Non-Spinners need a definition that mentions rotation about an external axis. It just so happens that weve got exactly that!”
The lies will never cease from the shameless TEAM.
“The “Spinners” need a definition [for “orbit”] that mentions translation, and the “Non-Spinners” need a definition that mentions rotation about an external axis. It just so happens that weve got exactly that!”
Except you DON’T have ‘exactly’ that. You can’t just ‘mention’ rotations and then leave ‘rotation’ to mean exactly what you want at any give moment.
We all know what it means to ‘rotate in a circle’, but what ‘exactly’ is a ‘rotation in an ellipse’? How ‘exactly’ does a moon face as it ‘rotates in an ellipse’ with ‘no rotation on its own axis’?
Tim! You’re back. The question was:
“Presumably, you agree that movement like the MOTR can be considered to be two motions, since you agree that movement like the MOTL can be considered to be one motion. Yes?”
Please answer.
Many thanks.
Nate says:
”No Bill, YOU have seen, ad nauseum, that WE are using the standard definition. You guys want to use something else, but refuse to say what that is.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1423770
And this is YOU agreeing that the orbit of the MOTR is not a rotation
”I agree that the MOTR could be considered to be curvilinear motion.””
—————————
All I have seen is you guys deny ad nauseum that an elliptical motion is a rotation and that it is actually 2 motions.
Only a few of you are holding to the single motion non-starter argument.
And I did not agree that the MOTR was not a rotation. If you could read you would plainly see what I said and you don’t need to add any words.
Fact is if you consider the MOTR as a curvilinear translation in the presence of earth’s gravity you would have to have two rotations going on with the second rotation having an independent power source to maintain a rotation on the moon’s axis that ‘canceled’ out the motion of the elliptical rotation.
But there is no problem with any of that in ‘considering’ the MOTR’s as a curvilinear translation and you would only have a big problem with that if you advanced to the engineer level and started creating worlds. Then you would need that power source to maintain opposition to the elliptical rotation of the MOTR and you would be installing something like solar powered gyroscopes to maintain it. Engineers understand this easily. Some physicists have big problems with that apparently.
Tim Folkerts says:
”There you go a definition of an ”elliptical rotation” .”
Yes, I agree that it can be done a combination of a rotation about the axis and a stretch away from the axis (so already this is ‘two motions’ and not ‘one motion’ in DREMTs language). But it brings up all sorts of further issues. For example, does the same rule apply to all parts of the moon? Then the (‘non-rotating’ in DREMTs language) moon would
a) keep the same face exactly toward the earth
b) stretch out 10% longer if it moved 10% farther away.
Both of these are wrong.
——————————-
This is discombobulated.
A rotation is a single motion. An elliptical rotation is no different as it is defined as the source defined it.
”Elliptical rotation is the motion of a point on an ellipse through some angle about a vector.”
It clearly says ”is the motion’. It does not say an elliptical rotation ”is the motions”.
Finally considering this one motion being considered two motions a curvilinear translation plus an axial rotation doesn’t recognize that there is in fact a rotation around an external axis that is approximated as Lorb+Lspin and is not approximated by Lorb.
thus the process of splitting the motion into two is like the dilemma of splitting up siamese twins, they frequently share a single necessary organ. You want to remove the axial rotation and ignore the external axis that disqualifies a translation from having angular momentum. So yeah you can debate endless how to split the twins but you are going to do more than that if you are going to provide all the necessary elements to each twin.
Tim,
These guys are both hopelessly in denial.
They cherry pick phrases from sources, like Wikipedia, which are editable by anyone and self contradictory, and thus unreliable, and pretend these are definitions!
They post that synonyms = definitions!
They claim that orbit is DEFINED as a rotation, without EVER finding a dictionary definition that agrees!
They claim that a rotation can be non-circular without ever showing a legitimate source that agrees, or a DEFINITION of rotation that agrees.
They are unable to even DEFINE rotation, because they know the real definition, eg in Madhavi and every other textbook, DOESNT WORK for them!
They will never debate this issue honestly, because they cannot win if they do.
I believe I predicted some “hysteria”. Seems I was correct, again.
Now…where’s Tim gone with the answer to that question?
Yes DREMT it looks like panic is setting in and they are in denial of the many science and dictionary and thesaurus posts we have made.
Nate says:
”They claim that orbit is DEFINED as a rotation, without EVER finding a dictionary definition that agrees!”
Right here Nate: And it is a dictionary not wikipedia.
”Noun 1. orbital rotation – motion of an object in an orbit around a fixed point; ‘satellites in orbital rotation”’
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/orbital+rotation
One cannot get anymore specific than that.
Nate says:
”They claim that a rotation can be non-circular without ever showing a legitimate source that agrees, or a DEFINITION of rotation that agrees.”
Right here Nate: 1) Elliptical rotation is the motion of a point on an ellipse through some angle about a vector.
https://tinyurl.com/2znbr677 – Science source Cornell University
And you are so desperate to be right now you lying because I posted this just above your post.
Madhavi provides everything else and you have been flopping like a fish out of water since trying to make Madhavi guidance not apply to orbits. But you are now completely out of arguments.
‘They claim that orbit is DEFINED as a rotation, without EVER finding a dictionary definition that agrees!
Right here Nate: And it is a dictionary not wikipedia.
Noun 1. orbital rotation motion of an object in an orbit around a fixed point; satellites in orbital rotation
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/orbital+rotation”
IT is clearly labeled a Thesaurus, Bill.
It is not a DEFINTION of Orbit. You guys have LOST.
Nate says:
They claim that a rotation can be non-circular without ever showing a legitimate source that agrees, or a DEFINITION of rotation that agrees.
Right here Nate: 1) Elliptical rotation is the motion of a point on an ellipse through some angle about a vector.
https://tinyurl.com/2znbr677 Science source Cornell University”
Clearly NOT a DEFINTION of ROTATION, Bill.
You guys are in deep deep denial of reality.
Go troll elsewhere.
The “hysteria” continues, and Tim has “left the building” rather than answer the simple question…
Bill, unable to provide a DEFINTION of rotation from a dictionary or textbook that works for him, he scours the internet for the phrase ‘elliptical rotation’ and finds a single reference to this combo in an obscure math paper.
Now he thinks that finding usage of any two words together on the internet means that the first word is defined in some way by the second word, or some such nonsense.
So lets try this out.
Search for ‘cold heat’
“Cold Heat Soldering Tool – Amazon.com”
So clearly Cold is defined as heat, or is heat is allowed to be cold or some such silliness!
Search for ‘circular triangle’
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CircularTriangle.html
So interesting. In mathematics two words can be put together to create a new meaning!
But it doesnt change the DEFINTION of either word by itself.
Nate says:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/orbital+rotation
IT is clearly labeled a Thesaurus, Bill.
It is not a DEFINTION of Orbit. You guys have LOST.
—————————–
It only looks like a label Nate. The freedictionary has it there as a link to the thesaurus. That should be obvious.
”orbital rotation motion of an object in an orbit around a fixed point; satellites in orbital rotation” that is obviously a definition and not synonyms. And at the top of the page they have tabs and it is on the definition tab not the thesaurus tab.
Did you pass English I in college?
——————————
Nate says:
They claim that a rotation can be non-circular without ever showing a legitimate source that agrees, or a DEFINITION of rotation that agrees.
Right here Nate: 1) Elliptical rotation is the motion of a point on an ellipse through some angle about a vector.
https://tinyurl.com/2znbr677 Science source Cornell University
Clearly NOT a DEFINTION of ROTATION, Bill.
—————————
Clearly? What is it in your mind?
Rather than countering our reputable sources Nate you are making a fool of yourself to claim we don’t have support. Why don’t you counter our evidence with evidence that provides definitions of what elliptical rotation and orbital rotation is? LOL! Thats because you have no credible sources on your side! You are just throwing mudballs at the wall in desperation something will stick, by the mud you are throwing is bouncing off the wall like a Waboba Moon Ball.
People are knowingly and repeatedly posting misinformation. These are otherwise known as lies.
Exposing these lies is labeled ‘hysteria’ by those same people.
That is how we recognize trolling.
Tim Folkerts says:
”There you go a definition of an elliptical rotation” .”
Yes, I agree that it can be done a combination of a rotation about the axis and a stretch away from the axis (so already this is ‘two motions’ and not one motion in DREMTs language).
—————————-
Tim appears to attempt to argue that elliptical rotation isn’t a real rotation because itself is made up of a rotation plus a stretch motion.
But Cassini proves this to be incorrect. He found there is no additional energy required to make the perceived stretch. Thus it can not be a repetitive motion. Angular momentum remains constant throughout the orbit as sweeping out equal areas of the ellipse demonstrating where the axis is in relationship to the path. Nate wishes to dispose of the vector from the axis to argue his point that its really a curvilinear translation in possession of angular momentum operating from the moon’s COM. All these ideas are insane. They are desperate! NASA’s notion of this is incorrect and merely stems from how they work taking a satellite into orbit then correcting its attitude. So they employ multiple motions to quickly bring a satellite into the attitude they desire and interestingly despite the spinner effort to single out elliptical rotation from circular rotation, satellites are being placed in circular orbit. LOL!
The desperate grasping at straws continues…
“So interesting. In mathematics two words can be put together to create a new meaning!
But it DOESNT change the DEFINTION of either word by itself.”
This is straightforward Bill.
More examples for the doubtful:
Angular velocity-
Does this mean that, by itself, VELOCITY is defined as ANGULAR?
Minimax-
Does this define a maximum as a minimum?
Nonsense.
Stop mangling sciency words.
Now we have Nate accusing Cornell University of mangling his view of the world.
I am not going to argue with you Nate your dispute here is with Cornell University. I provided their definition of an elliptical rotation as support for my argument.
I provided the free dictionary definition of orbital rotation as support for my argument.
And here you are without any support at all for your positions on orbital and elliptical rotation complaining about my support.
Why don’t you go off and find support for an elliptical curvilinear translation? I have said from the beginning there is nothing at all physical about an orbit that qualifies it as a curvilinear translation.
The entire body of science says a curvilinear translation is a curved path controlled within the path and lacks any axis outside of the path of the particles. Madhavi warns about this and has diagrams to alleviate the confusion regarding characterization of rotations on external axes. Yet you are so inculcated you reject her instructions. I am sure she put that in the material because of experience with confused students.
You go find some support that that is not true then come back here after you find it. . . .or just concede argument. You aren’t winning by bluster. You are only highlighting your foolishness.
Bill,
Your Cornell article is putting two words together, elliptical and rotation, but you have no idea what the purpose of that is.
To claim that it is saying that a rotation can produce an ellipse is poppycock!
You havent bothered to read the article!
Its first line, clearly states:
“A rotation is an example of an isometry, a map that moves points without changing the distances between them.”
This explains it at your level:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/rotation.html
BTW I found this link by searching TRIANGULAR ROTATION.
The second figure shows an example of that.
Note that TRIANGULAR ROTATION doesnt mean a rotation can produce a triangle!
It should be VERY EASY to find definitions of ROTATION that fit your POV, without resorting to indecipherable mathematics journal articles.
Just search Rotation in Geometry Definition.
https://byjus.com/maths/rotation/
“Rotation Definition
Rotation means the circular movement of an object around a centre. It is possible to rotate different shapes by an angle around the centre point. Mathematically, a rotation means a map.”
It’s all very simple, Bill.
1) Look up definition of "revolution/orbit".
2) Does definition mention "translation"? If "yes", then it supports the "Spinners".
3) Does definition mention "rotation"? If "yes", then it supports the "Non-Spinners".
4) Does definition only mention "movement in a path or trajectory"? If "yes", then it doesn’t really have any bearing on the issue. You could say it supports "Spinners" and "Non-Spinners" equally. So it changes nothing.
5) Repeat steps 1 – 4 for the next definition of "revolution/orbit".
Doing so, I’ve found three definitions that support the "Non-Spinners", which I’ve linked to further up-thread. There are more, but I’m happy with the three. On the other hand, I’ve found none that support the "Spinners".
So, that’s that.
The business of no ‘translation’ in the definition of orbit is a ‘problem’ for spinners has been thoroughly debunked.
Once again the Earth and all the planets are orbiting the sun, and they clearly have spin, and thus it is not accurate to say they are translating, yet they satisfy the standard definition of ORBIT. They are following a path through space around a center.
Bill, re: ROTATION.
The MOTL, we have been repeatedly told by DREMT, can be considered to be one motion, which is a ROTATION around an external axis.
How is he so certain? Because he has, from the long ago, referred readers to Madhavi’s definition of rotation.
“Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel
planes along CIRCLES centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation,
intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.”
So for him to claim NOW that an elliptical orbit satisfies the definition of rotation, would mean he is saying that Madhavi has been WRONG in her DEFINTION of ROTATION, all this time.
That would be a big surprise. After all he has constantly referred readers to her definition of rotation to harp on the fact that the MOTL simply is a rotation around an external axis.
The point is ORBIT is NOT DEFINED as a rotation as repeatedly claimed by DREMT.
That is FALSE.
Because Madhavi’s definition of rotation is absolutely correct, and agrees with every other textbook. And ORBITS in general are elliptical and cannot satisfy that definition.
Those who are capable of thinking clearly, calmly and logically on the issue will note that "Spinners" think all the planets that are in orbit around the Sun are translating, whilst rotating on their own internal axes, and the "Non-Spinners" think all the planets that are in orbit around the Sun are rotating about an external axis, whilst rotating on their own internal axes. The difference is not in "axial rotation" (rotation about an internal axis), and so the difference must lie with the "orbital motion". So "Spinners" need to support the idea that "orbital motion" is translational, and "Non-Spinners" need to support the idea that "orbital motion" is rotational.
"Non-Spinners" can do that, "Spinners" can’t.
What "Spinners" can do is abandon all logic and reason, and try to claim that definitions of "revolution/orbit" in which it’s said to be just a path, or trajectory, somehow support them!
Reason and logic requires one’s claims to be consistent with each other.
Nates brain explodes and when it comes back on line only half the remaining braincells are firing.
Here Nate claims he found triangular rotation when in fact all he found was a mapping problem of rotating a triangle around a central point.
Whereas elliptical rotation is defined as a particle or object rotating on an elliptical path.
Not the same thing Nate. Why not simply launch a triangular satellite into an elliptical orbit? At least that would be somewhat on topic.
If you are going to have a particle follow a triangular path you will get no argument from me that is a translatory motion and it will possess zero angular momentum.
Face it Nate your argument in the moon discussion isnt going anywhere. I think you need some rest.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
January 10, 2023 at 2:16 PM
Its all very simple, Bill. . . . . . . .
So, thats that.
———————————-
Great argument!
Bill and DREMT are content with their mutually exclusive claims:
“How is he so certain? Because he has, from long ago, referred readers to Madhavis definition of rotation.
“Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel
planes along CIRCLES centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation,
intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.”
So for him to claim NOW that an elliptical orbit satisfies the definition of rotation, would mean he is saying that Madhavi has been WRONG in her DEFINTION of ROTATION, all this time.”
They willfully ignore any contradictory facts.
That’s how we recognize trolls who are in deep deep denial.
“all he found was a mapping problem of rotating a triangle around a central point.
Whereas elliptical rotation is defined as a particle or object rotating on an elliptical path.”
Bill finds two words together and GUESSES the definition of this combo.
While the issue has always been what is the DEFINTION of the single word, ROTATION.
He refuses to do an EASY search to find out. We have to do it for him.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/rotation.html
“‘Rotation’ means turning around a center:
The distance from the center to any point on the shape stays the same.
Every point makes a circle around the center:”
He cannot live in a world with this definition apparently.
Oh well, takes some LSD.
A brief history of this debate, for anybody reading who is still following along…
Way back in the mists of time, everybody involved in this debate would treat orbits as being circular, when discussing the moon problem. There would be various people posting GIFS of different objects in orbit, spinning at different rates and in different directions, and the "Spinners" would say "that is rotating x number of times per orbit" and the "Non-Spinners" would say, "no, that is rotating y number of times per orbit". All of the orbits shown would be circular. This is back when "Non-Spinners" were first trying to get across the idea that "orbit without spin" was as per the MOTL, and that "spin" had to be kept separate from that motion. Even then, few people got it, and most of the "Spinners" of the time got "lost in reference frames", falsely declaring that "Non-Spinners" saw the issue wrt a non-inertial reference frame, where "Spinners" saw the issue wrt an inertial reference frame. We still often see that false accusation, even to this very day!
It wasn’t until the idea of "rotation about an external axis" for motion like the MOTL and "translation in a circle" for motion like the MOTR was introduced to the debate that some of these confused "Spinners" started to finally understand what we had been talking about all along. This is where Madhavi, and various other sources and ways of explaining the point, was brought up, and why. It was necessary to try to get people to understand that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" was motion like the MOTL. In other words, that movement like the MOTL could be described as "one motion", and that "axial rotation", the second motion, was then to be kept separate from this first motion. Thus, the issue transcended reference frames, because it was not about defining "axial rotation" wrt a certain reference frame, rather it was simply a question of keeping "axial rotation" separate from the "one motion"…the "orbital motion".
So this introduction of "rotation about an external axis" and "translation in a circle" was all being applied to these circular orbit examples that people kept posting, simply in order to get the point across that motion like the MOTL could be considered to be "one motion", and then "axial rotation" was separate to that "one motion". People just struggled to see it. They still do.
Now it seems like other people, who maybe (or maybe not) are finally able to understand what we have been arguing all along, are so desperate to find any sort of flaw within the "Non-Spinner" argument that they are trying to make a huge fuss about terms that were only introduced to get across a simple point that pig-headed "Spinners" simply could not get through their heads, at the time! The idea really is that movement like the MOTL can be considered to be "one motion", in other words "not rotating on its own axis". This is usually enough for most people to "get it". It doesn’t even really matter how you describe this motion, kinematically. The point is to get across that it’s "one motion". Orbital motion.
So all this fuss now about "rotation has to occur in a circle", etc., is just nuts. It’s just last-ditch, desperate stuff from the "Spinners" to avoid accepting the obvious. They’ve taken years to understand something that a reasonably intelligent child could have understood from the beginning, due to their programming, and now they realize that they look a bit silly, they’re just lashing out with anything they can!
Bill says: “Whereas elliptical rotation is defined as a particle or object rotating on an elliptical path.”
These are two very different things. A particle generally means something with no size and no discernable orientation. A particle can move along a path with no concern about orientation. The point can simply follow the elliptical path.
But an object like a moon is different. The Center of Mass could ‘rotate on an elliptical path’ but what about every other part of that moon. Does the closest point on the moon rotate on some different elliptical path? Does the leading point on the moon rotate on some different elliptical path? How is the moon orientated as it ‘rotates on the elliptical path’?
You can’t just skip these details.
“This is where Madhavi, and various other sources and ways of explaining the point, was brought up, and why. It was necessary to try to get people to understand that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” was motion like the MOTL.”
OMG..
They are saying:
So before I needed Madhavi to be right about rotation.
But NOW I need her to be wrong. So yeah…she’s wrong, now.
Her standard definition of rotation, that all textbooks use?
Yeah…that’s wrong, now.
Does anybody buy this crap?
“So all this fuss now about “rotation has to occur in a circle” …”
The fuss is not that rotation has to be in a circle per se. The fuss is that you ‘non-spinners’ need a self-consistent set of definitions.
The idealized animated MOTL *can* be be accurately described as a (circular) rotation about an external axis. Every point on that moon moves in a circle. Some circles are larger than others, but all are precisely circles and all have precisely the same, constant angular velocity about the earth.
A real moon like ours can NOT be accurately described as a (elliptical) rotation. The center moves in an ellipse. But no other point moves precisely in an ellipse and no other point moves precisely with the same angular velocity about the earth as the center.
But a real moon CAN be accurately described as the center moving on an elliptical path + the moon rotating on its own axis at a steady rate.
And as everyone knows, no matter how clever or intuitive a hypothesis might seem to be, if it doesn’t accurately predict reality, then it must be discarded in favor of a hypothesis that can accurately predict reality.
Too right, Tim.
Now, even though a ball on a string *can* be described as rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, it *can also* be described as a translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Since translation doesn’t ever entail rotation, Graham’s 1+1 trick fails, and we are left with two valid choices; both are consistent with geometry, but only one makes physical sense in any conceivable orbit/axial tilt scenario.
And it is definitely wrong to apply rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis to the real Moon for reasons endlessly given but ignored or wriggled away from.
Tim Folkerts says:
January 11, 2023 at 1:07 PM
So all this fuss now about rotation has to occur in a circle
The fuss is not that rotation has to be in a circle per se. The fuss is that you non-spinners need a self-consistent set of definitions.
———————————–
Thats not a bad escape from the MOTL dilemma DREMT caught you in since the MOTL is moving in a circle.
But your idea of movement seems to be confounding libration as being a real motion as opposed to a change of perspective re: the elliptical path of the moon.
Now there is a concept I think called nutation (not sure about that) but the moon’s orientation to the orbital axis does change via libration and there is a force to resist that which is the gravity of earth. That theoretically could slightly alter libration.
But in all cases of rotation there are going to be such forces present as only planets and moons stay in closest alignment to the rules of gravity.
Everywhere else in real world rotations you are going to have even greater nutations. Planets and moons have the least as the misalignment is like what (7 degrees?) and the momentum of the moon simply isn’t measurably affected.
this is all addressed here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#amp
So where do you draw the line Tim? As DREMT has pointed out about the only source out there operating on your logic doesn’t explain the logic only declares it as a fact. As you are doing here.
Ultimately DREMT is right. You seem to understand he is right but have committed based upon an appeal to authority that isn’t universally accepted across the broad field of science nor even within the field astronomy. Worse it remains completely unexplained and freely accepts conflicts with other accepted conventions in science like how a curvilinear translation can only have an angular momentum around an axis within the path of the translation. Yet we know it is widely accepted that the angular momentum that results from that condition is only about .0008% of the moons orbital angular momentum.
We have shown multiple examples of elliptical rotation that are both theoretical, mathematically correct and consistent across all established fields of science.
Yet there is a supposed field of study that doesn’t want to accept that consistency and you have NASA publishing the unsupported statement that the moon rotates on its own axis in synchronization with its orbit. No argument, no body of work showing that to be the case, no consistency with the accepted concept of elliptical rotation, yet all the arguments for it in here object to the concept of elliptical rotation.
As DREMT has challenged. It is on you to produce a body of work that that includes an angular momentum and is called an ‘Elliptical translation’. By definition the moon’s orbit cannot be an elliptical translation as such a motion can only possess angular momentum, by definition, around the COM of the moon.
DREMT has already acknowledged this disconnect in science and has said it needs to be corrected.
“We have shown multiple examples of elliptical rotation that are both theoretical, mathematically correct and consistent across all established fields of science.”
No you havent.
You refuse to show a definition of ROTATION that agrees with this, because you have none. We have shown you many that do not agree. You guys cannot refute Madhavi’s definition, and previously were citing it regularly.
Just stop with BS.
Good to see Brandy Guts is finally learning some of the basics that I tried to tell him months ago, but he completely rejected at the time. Maybe he can help Little Willy out in future, who’s still wildly confused.
"Graham’s 1+1 trick fails"
No, Brandy Guts. It’s not a trick, and it does not fail, as I explained to you further upthread. It’s just a simple, obvious fact about rotation. That you can describe the movement of the MOTL as being comprised of two motions, a translation in a circle plus a rotation on an internal axis, does not refute the argument…because the argument strictly involves rotation about an external axis. It’s just something simple that Little Willy failed to understand for years, and so he’s blown it out of all proportion. Anyone with half a brain should understand that I’m correct on that issue. You cannot combine rotation about an external axis, with rotation about an internal axis, and get motion like the MOTL.
What it ultimately all comes down to is whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL or the MOTR. The correct answer is…it’s like the MOTL. Nothing can change that. Now, where were we…
…Tim’s back! He can finally answer the question:
“Presumably, you agree that movement like the MOTR can be considered to be two motions, since you agree that movement like the MOTL can be considered to be one motion. Yes?”
Your answer please, Tim.
Nate says:
”the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel
planes along CIRCLES centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). ”
Sorry Nate you are reading in a condition and felt the need to capitalize it to emphasize your out of context quote.
Madhavi is explaining the sample Figure she is referring to and indeed the diagram has the particles moving in circles.
She goes on to say:
”For example, the plate shown in Fig 2(a) is in curvilinear translation, with all its particles moving along parallel circles,
while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
So would then read into that that curvilinear translations can only be in circles?
You are darned quick to take words of a scientist and expand their intent to your own desire. Then you go forward ignoring examples of scientists saying ”orbital rotation”, and “elliptical rotation” and never ever have you come up with scientist talking about “elliptical translation” which is your Holy Grail.
Finally then you ignore that curvilinear translation can only have angular momentum taken from an axis in the line of the path. Yet there is no dispute over the fact that the elliptical rotation of the moon has angular momentum taken from an axis at the center of the earth.
So fine you aren’t going to address those things and instead you are going to try to hide from those issues behind Madhavi’s skirt like a scared child and impute meaning from Madhavi’s explanations of examples while she never explicitly set any boundaries for rules of rotation.
Spinners keep trying to create a condition out of thin air.
The condition that a body in rotation must be moving in circles is the false condition.
Science has such a term for such movement and it is called ‘pure rotation’.
They have accepted this but continue to suggest any rotation must be a pure rotation or that any impure rotation must entail 2 motions that they have great difficulty describing.
They use vague terms without any published scientific support like ”stretch”, ”libration”, ”tilted axis” or ”translation plus rotation”
Then there is DREMTs question. Now is it possible that the MOTR can have zero angular momentum on its own axis and have angular momentum around the external axis? This does not meet the conditions for rotation on an external axis. Elliptical motion becomes a shadow boxer here when focused on the MOTL vs MOTR.
They want to play off between the two.
The answer is the MOTR would have to have an Lspin that was different than the Lspin that is part of the angular momentum going around the external axis.
They have to accept that or have to completely reject rotation on an external axis and call that a translation in every instance comprised of two motions in the case of the MOTL and a single motion for the MOTR.
The idea that orbital motion is a translation arises purely out of the form of the equation for angular momentum of a uniform sphere rotating on an external axis. It is so confusing for the spinners that their only recourse is to claim the angular momentum of an object rotating on an external axis is in fact linear momentum and they even use a linear momentum formula to calculate it.
What they fail to see is the Lorb term isn’t an independent angular momentum it is only one term of two in the angular momentum formula for a sphere rotating on an external axis. . . .thus a single motion that is pure rotation on an external axis without axial spin on the objects axis has to be the MOTL.
That is not going to change when you move to other forms of single motion rotation.
So the key here for Tim and others is to first answer the question about pure rotation on an external axis posed by DREMT. Leave elliptical motion out of it and establish a primary principle before moving to other possible forms of rotation.
“Madhavi is explaining the sample Figure she is referring to and indeed the diagram has the particles moving in circles.”
Nice try to mislead people again, Bill, but pointless.
Everyone, even DREMT, know this is Madhavi’s DEFINITION of rotation.
The clue is that it is under the BOLD heading:
1.0 Rotation about a Fixed Axis.
You really can’t figure that out? Anyway, the argument is over, and you lost.
fine Nate. I am not going to continue to argue with you while you vacillate from one objection to another. You must first take a position on DREMTs question about the generic moon’s in circular orbit around a planet.
That question is which moon represents orbital motion without axial rotation. Is it the MOTL or the MOTR. Once you commit to that answer we can then proceed to further discussion. Ideally we get everybody to give an answer to identify the nature of the dispute before proceeding. Lets see if the spinners are all on the same page.
So DREMT and I pick the MOTL. Anybody else spinners or nonspinners can chime in. . . .especially Tim and Willard who have demonstrated a potential split in the spinner forces. Everybody has to give a clear thought about what is to rotate on an external axis. In that way we can put folks in the proper category which might comprise of more than spinners and non-spinners.
Gill, Gill,
If you want to collect receipts, you need to read the sub threads in which you comment.
There are already many responses you failed to collect.
Here is one:
Rotation implies a circle.
Ellipses are not circles.
Orbits are not pure rotations.
Collect it, or else I will have to remind you of it.
That or I will ask Bordon to remind you.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Nate denies:
”4) Revolution/orbit is defined as rotation about an external axis”’
is a LIE. It still is.
—————————–
Nope you are just in denial of a rotation around an external axis and you and others just personally desire without any competent study supporting your case to selectively create a subgroup of rotations around an exterior axis as being comprised of two separate motions in all such self-defined cases.
Gill, Gill,
No need to resurrect that sub thread to spit nonsense.
There is no supergroup of rotations that apply to non circles.
General motion is fine.
Sure, you can describe “orbit without spin” as a general plane motion, if you prefer, Little Willy. That also supports the “Non-Spinners”.
“Youve got it wrong gb.”
They *might* have it wrong- I am quoting from a blog post at Climate Etc which is written by: By Planning Engineer (Russell Schussler) at Judith Curry’s blog {Climate Etc}:
https://judithcurry.com/
{ And I liked, Thomas Sowells, quote.
I believe you mentioned Thomas Sowell in some other post, that you made months ago, Gordon. He has written a lot of stuff.}
Oh actually you might saying someone else is wrong:
–This brings to top of mind a joke I once heard at a seminar for new power engineers. A Professor of Electrical Engineering was expounding on the differences between engineers and scientists. He explained:
Both engineers and scientists want to understand the world and both want to solve problems. Engineers worry about how much something costs. Scientists dont worry about the cost; they just want the truth. So, the difference between an engineer and a scientist is that an engineer at least has some common sense.
—
If that is the part that you are referring to.
gb…I was not taking a shot at you, merely correcting your narrative that engineers are only worried about costs. Engineers are as fully qualified as any science student to do science, if required. We all learn to apply the scientific method.
Another low from the north is fast approaching California. The front will again pull a lot of moisture from the south.
https://i.ibb.co/JQgzY6C/pobrane-1.png
Is this a civil war commentary?
Now, *this* is a title:
https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2023/01/04/on-the-twelfth-day-of-christmas-wuwt-gave-to-me-another-dreadful-analysis-of-uncertainty/
Oh Noes… Kip Hansen.
Terrible dude discrediting the tide gauge data from ALL gauges whose associated GPS station measuring vertical land movement around the gauge is more than 1 meter away…
Shades of Pat Frank.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/propagation-of-nonsense/
At least two more cyclones from the north will reach California in the next few days.
https://i.ibb.co/YRvPGQV/pobrane-2.png
When will La Nina end? Who knows!
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
It probably won’t end, it will just weaken before it strengthens again.
It will end within three months, with a possible El Nino to follow.
We shall see.
Indeed we will. How about you make your own prediction.
Here is my probability distribution:
End Jan
LN 90%, N 10%, EN 0%
End Feb
LN 65%, N 35%, EN 0%
End Mar
LN 35%, N 64%, EN 1%
End Apr
LN 15%, N 80%, EN 5%
End May
LN 5%, N 80%, EN 15%
End Jun
LN 5%, N 70%, EN 25%
And staying with those probabilities for the moment for the rest of the year.
Your now …
Somewhere on this plot.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
For a prediction to have any value, it must be falsifiable. For example, what definition of “La Niña ending” is being used. There are several.
You could define it to be 30 days with ENSO 3.4 above -0.5C. Or, 60 days above -0.5C
You just need to be clear, unless you’re wanting to be able to wiggle out when you’re wrong.
Antonin Qwerty says:
Indeed we will. How about you make your own prediction.
Here is my probability distribution:
———————
That’s probably a good bet. Statistically there have been only 2 three winter La Ninas in the official record. One was followed by an El Nino and the other by neutral.
A fourth winter La Nina would be unprecedented. Likely there is a gravity issue with excess La Ninas with too much Pacific Ocean water piling up in the west. But it also depends upon the strength of the circulations in the northern and southern oceans.
Calling these probabilities – LN 15%, N 80%, EN 5% – a prediction is a total nonsense, since it predicts all outcomes are possible it predicts absolutely nothing. you will always be right since It cannot be falsified even after the fact.
Something tells me you are not a betting boy, Eboy.
Eben and Hunter
Why does it need to be verifiable? It’s not like I’m going to even remember 3 months from now that I posted this. There is nothing to “wiggle out” of – it is only commentary designed to express what I think is likely to happen. You treat this like a personal contest. Why didn’t you also attack RLH for saying “somewhere on this plot”? For once he provided a reasonable answer, and it is essentially the same as mine.
“it is essentially the same as mine.”
Only if you believe that the ‘average’ of multiple runs means something. How about the min and max of those very same runs?
Why, for instance, do you disregard IOCAS ICM?
Antonin Qwerty says:
”Eben and Hunter
Why does it need to be verifiable?”
I didn’t say it needed to be verifiable. I said it looks good. But there is a small matter of the spring predictability barrier and thus far regarding actually having a good record for picking the odds the record does not support any skill at doing that. Thus we resort to statistical analysis techniques which to be good predictors you do need some real indicator variables to have skill, so it might make a lot more sense to say why you think the odds are the way they should be. I did.
And of course I could extend that reasoning by ripping a page out of the CAGW playbook.
I could surmise that it is possible that if a 4th La Nina winter does occur it would be because of unmeasured global cooling (by the unmeasured planet heat content index that doesn’t exist) and caused coolish Neutrals to measure as mild La Nina due to the use of an out of date base period.
This is something one would expect to happen when a trend reverses and its actually a much stronger argument than simply pointing to a continuing trend as an indicator as did GISS when Hansen said El Nino was the new normal. Hansen was overran his predictions as he was always a believer in a need for an accelerating climate change to achieve the modeling/Charney Report 100 year predictions and to support his El Nino as the new normal claim. But what did he get? Deceleration.
So, Gill.
Have you found back the authoritative translation of the Principia?
“when Hansen said El Nino was the new normal. ”
Bill pontificates, and makes up stuff, again.
Yep the climate morons like to forget the babble of the past. I saw 60 minutes on CBS just a short while ago recycling Paul Ehrlich who in the late 60’s projected a few famines of the cold spells of the 60’s and predicted mass starvation becoming the normal within a couple of decades.
Ehrlich during the interview constantly referred to his ideas as his with which his ”colleagues” agree reminding us of how easy it is to become a complete nutcase if one becomes a member of a ‘think tank’.
Yep you can read about it in a ‘peer’ reviewed study published in ”The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0606291103
Your foul language might make Bordon sad, Gill.
“when Hansen said El Nino was the new normal.”
Hansen (et al) do not say anything like that in the paper you just cited, and pretended you’d corroborated that view.
Is it that you can’t read, or is that the closest you could get to the fabricated view you pedalled?
Let’s quote the paper for comparison:
"…we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998…
Theory does not provide a clear answer about the effect of global warming on El Niños (19, 20). Most climate models yield either a tendency toward a more El Niño-like state or no clear change (22). It has been hypothesized that, during the early Pliocene, when the Earth was 3°C warmer than today, a permanent El Niño condition existed (23). We suggest, on empirical grounds, that a near-term global warming effect is an increased likelihood of strong El Niños…
We make no suggestion about changes of El Niño frequency, and we note that an abnormally warm WEP does not assure a strong El Niño. The origin and nature of El Niños is affected by chaotic ocean and atmosphere variations, the season of the driving anomaly, the state of the thermocline, and other factors, assuring that there will always be great variability of strength among El Niños."
Reminding us yet again you are not a trustworthy interpreter of the science.
Because you are at heart a political animal on this subject.
Barry of course he did!
It was reported widely by the press in interviews with Hansen.
And of course if you look at the link I provided alone or worse combine it with all of Hansen’s predictions he would have to be an idiot to say anything different.
Fact is in a steady trend of warming El Nino will be favored as the base of the index is between 15 to 20 years out of date. . . .thus El Ninos will be more frequent. El Ninos that aren’t real El Nino and are simply by virtue of convention.
So the problem wasn’t Hansen saying that. He would have been right if warming had continued to accelerate as he predicted.
You have to take this all the way back to the Charney Report in the 70’s where it was Hansen’s dire models that established the 3c predictions for a doubling of CO2. Acceleration was part of those models. But despite rising emissions acceleration has not occurred and the jury is still out of whether it has decelerated.
If you want to say that emissions will warm the planet by 2c for each doubling you won’t get a strong argument from me. I don’t personally believe it but I could see the possibility of the climate warming that much over a couple of centuries from a number of potential causes both natural and man made and especially if you want to include our foibles in actually measuring how much stuff is even warming right now much less than a century and a half ago.
“Paul Ehrlich who in the late 60s projected a few famines of the cold spells of the 60s and predicted mass starvation becoming the normal within a couple of decades.”
Bill sprinkles his narrative “a few famines of the cold spells of the 60s” in with facts, while ignoring that Erlichs main concern was population growth.
“Barry of course he did!”
Bill, all you have to do is actually quote Hansen saying the el Nino is the new normal.
I googled for this and found nothing, and the article you cited says nothing like that, predictably.
You failed miserably corroborating the statement with your first attempt.
Either put up or stop lying.
Well I don’t have time to search for it. I just recall it being reported he said it and it fostered a good deal of discussion. If I find time I will look for the actual quote. In the meantime you are welcome to be a denier as much as it pleases you.
Population Bomb
The first sentence set the tone: The battle to feed all of humanity is over. And humanity had lost.
Unlike a denier, Bill, I read the reference you provided and then googled for myself to see if what you said was true. If it was “reported widely by the press”, I couldn’t find it.
I did find a paper that Hansen co-wrote which used the term “new normal”, but it wasn’t about el Nino, and the phrase was in quotes – ie, said by people other than the authors.
Nate thinks you’ve made that up too.
Do let us know when you’ve had a look for it.
Like I said when I find some time. You could provide a link to what you found, it could aid in my search.
Akasofu published a report that suggests that current warming isn’t unusual. Using freeze dates chronicled by the ancients suggests that current temperatures are within the range of natural climate change.
I don’t have much time for research due to other commitments but recently came across a natural indicator that current warming isn’t unusual. Apparently temperatures of the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea are currently warm enough to grow date palms but not warm enough for the trees to set fruit. Also chronicles apparently show that date fruit was produced in those islands back in 250bc.
Science by special interests today would deny that.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Emails/April2022.pdf
That’s the Hansen paper where the words “new normal” appears in quotes, and it does not refer to el Ninos being the new normal.
He didn’t say that. You made it up. Or believed someone else whop made it up. Or misremembered something he actually said.
“You made it up.”
That’s what we have learned to expect from Bill. He doesnt seem to appreciate how he keeps diminishing his credibility with this behavior.
Nate desperately attempts to deflect from the fact that he can’t find a single source of support for the concept of ‘elliptical motion’ being ‘elliptical translation’ and instead has chosen to attack the wide spread use of the terms ‘elliptical rotation’, ‘orbital rotation’, and the MOTL being a single motion.
For Nate, science is whatever Nate wants it to be.
Trying to track down some of James Hansen’s more ridiculous comments is always difficult with the number of internet whitewashers and excuse makers out there. And I don’t say that in disrespect for James Hansen. He has scientific training, is a smart guy, and is not an evil man quite to the contrary he is a sentient and caring person. I respect him for that. He is one of the very few who came out in strong opposition to cap and trade because of how that approach favors the elite class and puts huge new burdens on the less fortunate to better their lives. Despite that we have a total nutcase of a Governor in California that doesn’t care a whit about those impacts. Those are the type of people to be feared. they just plow ahead on a special interests mission and figure they can toss dollars at the impacts and make reparation for their stupidity.
Thanks for the link Barry. I appreciate it.
That definitely isn’t what I was referring to. Thats a 2022 paper. The comment I am referring to is probably at least 15 years ago if not longer.
ren…I predict LN will end when it ends.
The correct answer.
“New images from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) reveal for the first time galaxies with stellar bars – elongated features of stars stretching from the centers of galaxies into their outer disks – at a time when the universe was a mere 25% of its present age. The finding of so-called barred galaxies, similar to our Milky Way, this early in the universe will require astrophysicists to refine their theories of galaxy evolution.”
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Webb_reveals_Milky_Way_like_galaxies_in_early_universe_999.html
gb…the truth is, astronomers can’t tell anything from the data they acquire. There is a good deal of conjecture in the interpretation.
That’s because visual telescope can make out no detail at such distances. The data is collected from radio-telescopes and all they give you is gas spectra from stars. From that, astronomers guess a good deal as to what the spectra are telling them.
Warning for California of impending heavy precipitation.
According to the historical MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index), the following triple-dip La Ninas occurred since January 1871:
Start Indexsum Months
1892: -54.67 / 40
1908: -52.22 / 41
1973: -48.71 / 36
1954: -40.45 / 31
2020: -39.68 / 30
1915: -38.97 / 31
1998: -37.66 / 36
1873: -36.82 / 33
Indexsum is the sum of all consecutive monthly indices with a value below the La Nina treshold (-0.5)
The current 2020 edition will soon bypass 1954, but it is not very probable that it will reach 1973. The remaining gap is big.
On verra bien!
*
Chart with all superposed 2/3-dip La Ninas since 1871
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
*
Source
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.ext/table.ext.html
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
Does it mean you see the superdeveloping La Nina yet or no ???
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-936851
#3
I was sure that whenever the little ankle-biting dachshund sees a tree, it would think, Oh! Time to get rid of a little pile.
When you get those moderator keys first thing you need to do is delete all the idiotic posts you yourself left all over this place so I cannot bring them back up again
Idiotic posts?
What about first looking at your own disgusting ‘circular reasoning’ or incompetent Zharkova Youtube trash, dachshund?
Every time you post your subcutaneously aggressive nonsense, you get laughed at louder.
Wipe your face, you’re Foaming at the Mouth
Zharkova comes across as an educated woman who has done some seriously good work. Time shall tell. Meantime, you might get your misogyny checked out.
Can’t figure you out. A couple of years ago you showed up impersonating a woman and now you are taking shots at a very good solar physicist.
Gordon
Please quote any words of his which you believe are misogynistic.
Apparently you believe A is misogynistic if he attacks the science of B, and B happens to be a woman. Rather than A attacking B BECAUSE B is a woman, or A attacking women in general in order to attack B.
When a woman joins this debate and attacks the science of a man, is that misandry?
binny…”I again did not start that discussion but gave a hint on how Robertson insults even Newtons best translator”.
***
I am not the only one who thinks the translation is poor. I just posted about a guy with 5 years of studying Latin who could not make head or tails of Newtons Latin in Principia.
The original translator of Newton in question has been widely critiqued for his interpretation. Personally, I think he translated Newton in places to support his view that the Moon rotates on a local axis.
I have given a scientific reason for my view. Newton claimed the Moon moves with a linear motion that is bent into curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravity. He also knew the Moon kept the same face to the Earth.
Based on his drawings of planetary motion, based themselves on his early calculus, there is no way he could have mistaken curvilinear motion for local rotation.
C’mon, Gordo.
Have you found the authoritative translation yet?
binny…”Being 100 % fluent in both French and German, along with a smattering of English, it was easy for me to convince myself that all three translations from the old Latin were perfectly similar and correct”.
***
Yet a guy with 5 years of Latin could not make head or tails of the Newton Latin.
****************
“{ Mottes translation was the best of all because he enriched Newtons main texts with very helpful, sometimes indispensable additions from his footnotes (all typeset in italic of course) }”.
***
Motte’s translation has been panned as being incorrect in places. That’s why a completely revised translation was produced in the 20th century. I am trying to get a hold of it.
https://telescoper.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/newtons-laws-in-translation/?unapproved=620131&moderation-hash=0b8fecc3c18618650d7c45c9e6767332#comment-620131
“I did five years of Latin at school, but found most of the Principia impenetrable when I tried to read it in the original”.
Psst, Bordo.
Have you found the authoritative translation yet?
No, dullard, my time is used up at the moment doing studies in nuclear physics.
C’mon, Bordo.
At 7:42 PM, you were ranting about Newton’s latin.
At 7:53 PM you were ranting about education.
At 7:57 PM yyou were ranting about freedom and democracy.
At at 8:00 PM you were ranting about names.
And at 7:30 PM you were also ranting about learning physics.
You should ask Gill about time management.
Robertson
You now reach a maximum in ridiculing yourself.
Try to read my comment again:
https://tinyurl.com/mr3drtbw
How can you compare a person having studied 5 years of Latin with three eminent translators of Newton?
As usual, your only source is… a contrarian blog.
where’s your proof that the three so-called eminent translators were no better than the guy with 5 years of Latin? And least he had the honesty to claim he could not decipher Newton’s Latin.
As usual, you behave like an arrogant and ignorant person.
These three ‘so-called’ eminent translators had way, way more knowledge than you could ever accumulate.
*
What are you in comparison to such people?
A little nothing, just like your ‘guy with 5 years of Latin’, who very probably didn’t understand anything of what Newton would have written, even if in English.
binny…”These three so-called eminent translators had way, way more knowledge than you could ever accumulate”.
***
How do you know they were eminent and not just dweebs who translated Old Latin poorly?
After all, they got Newton wrong. He claimed the Moon kept the same face pointed to the Earth while performing linear motion. Earth’s gravity bent the linear motion into an orbit to produce curvilinear motion. He actually said that, I translated it myself.
However, Motte mis-translated it to make it appear as if Newton claimed the the Moon turned on a local axis. Problem is, Motte translated Newton as claiming the Moon ***revolved*** about its axis, which obviously means the axis is Earth.
That’s the only possible translation since Newton knew the Moon moved with only a linear velocity while keeping the same side pointed at Earth. That means gravity bends the linear momentum into an orbit. Since the Moon keeps the same side pointed at Earth, Newton obviously meant the Moon was translating only, with no local rotation.
Robertson
During decades of work as a real engineer, I never met any colleague in any development project who would have been, like you, simply unable to do one of the simplest jobs on Earth.
Namely to accurately compare temperature anomalies computed with respect to the mean of so different reference periods like 1901-2000 and 1991-2020:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365217
*
Even in that trivial activity you utterly failed, and moreover discredited me as a person who would post faked graphs!
And a thorough failure like you dares to denigrate people who perfectly understood Newton’s science?
You are such a plain zero, Robertson!
Bindidon, does your tantrum have anything to do with the fact that you don’t have a viable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
Having NOTHING can be quite frustrating, huh?
Looks like you’re speaking from experience, Pup.
Is it because you still haven’t done the Pole Dance Experiment?
binny…”During decades of work as a real engineer…”.
***
I am sure you mean you were an engineer in the sense of a locomotive engineer, or a sanitary engineer, aka janitor, but you don’t write as if you’ve had any university education in applied science.
Robertson
You may write your pseudo-scientific nonsense as long as you want.
You never were an engineer at any time.
Real engineers don’t behave like you, beginning with your pathologic and fanatic denial of any science you don’t understand.
No real engineer on Earth was/is/will ever be dumb enough to think the Moon wouldn’t spin just because we see the same face of it all the time.
Hey, Bordo, I’m listening to this:
https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/reliable-liars#details
For some reason this made me think of you.
little dick, er, I mean willy…a person like you with a half-wit should refrain from witticisms.
How about half-witticisms, Bordo?
Gordo,
Look what Canada is trying to do to Jordan Petersen. They don’t like what he has been saying about transgender, so they are trying to shut him up.
Two things, Troglodyte.
It is not Canada, but a corporation.
It is not to shut him up, for that would be an impossible task.
Cheers.
What Is a Quasi-Public Corporation? A quasi-public corporation is a company in the private sector that is supported by the government with a public mandate to provide a given service. Examples include telegraph and telephone companies, oil and gas, water, and electric light companies, and irrigation companies.
What is a Quasi-Government Agency?
A quasi-government agency is a business entity that provides specific governmental services. Due to their special status, they are not quite a governmental agency but are not private businesses either. Learn what quasi-government agencies are and what services they provide the American government and the public.
https://study.com/learn/lesson/quasi-government-agency.html
Well spotted, gb.
In Canada, things are little different. A professional order is a legal person that works like an association. Its mandate is first and foremost to protect the public from scoundrels like the Son of a Lobster. It is
Unlike a union, psychologists need to be a member of it to practice. A psychologist can decide to form a corporation, a process that is supervised by the order.
You can read about it on the College page.
The recent storms have been blasting the Sierra Nevada mountain range with an incredible amount of snow, with each event being measured in feet. For the entire range, the amount of water locked in the snowpack is above average for the season so far, and in some places, is approaching the average amount for an entire winter season. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the current average snowpack across the range is at a 10-year high.
In the USA, we love our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. In the rest of the world, there is no free speech or any other freedoms unless granted to you by Government; in that sense, they are only privileges. God Bless our Constitution.
stephen…best to hang onto those freedoms. There are forces at work who believe democracy is a waste of time and that governments are better directed by dictators along the lines of China.
That’s what we are fighting right now and if people don’t start speaking up, those forces will take it to mean silence is approval of their dictatorships.
Yep – the forces who don’t believe in democracy were most active in their endeavours exactly two years ago today.
Not hardly Antonin. You are guilty of stinkin thinkin.
Antonin,
By the way, we are a Republic. And the only evil forces on January the 6th were the ones who allowed the murderer of Ashli Babbitt to go unpunished.
Not that again:
https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-burmila
Hey Gordo,
Did you see what Canada is trying to do to Jordan Petersen? Shut him up because of his transgender comments.
Every nation has a source from which the authority to govern flows.
The UK constitution is unwritten, based on custom and practice. Parliament derives its authority from the Crown, which originally derived from the divine right of kings. It is notable that the oaths of allegiance made by soldiers, politicians, judges etc are to the Crown rather than to the Prime Minister.
Republics such as the US have a written constitution. This defines who may rule, the processes for choosing them and the limitations on them. It is from the Constitution that the President derives the authority to govern, Congress derives the authority to legislate and judges the authority to administer the laws.
I’m not sure whether your enthusiasm for your constitution is still justified. Since Newt Gingrich it has become almost customary for Congress and the Presidency to be controlled by different parties. Congress becomes onstructionist.
Why, in such cirmstances, does Congress no longer recognises the President’s authority to govern? Isn’t such opposition unconstitutional?
Ent, to people of your ilk, government is “god”. To realists, government is a “necessary evil” that must be constantly controlled and reigned in.
The Constitution is necessary in controlling government.
You will never understand because you don’t understand any of this. You actually believe you can pervert reality. But that just makes you a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
Our Founders didn’t think much of your Monarchy or their
They wanted to make Washington a King. He said no.
George Washington
Actually, Troglodyte, judicial review comes from the Brits. It was presumed to be the thing to do. It is an unwritten assumption.
Your Fathers (and grand dad Benjamin) would never have thought that troglodytes would be silly enough to propose originalism as a serious idea.
Recent events in Congress are revealing. It had become clear that the US is now governed by 20 extreme Right Wing Republican conservatives.
Is this really what the Constitution intended?
THAT is exactly the intention of the Constitution!
Those recent events are revealing, but you again failed to understand. It is precisely what the Constitution intended. Adherents to the Constitution are often labeled as right-wing extremists by leftists like you.
I don’t understand it. Why did Benjamin Franklin deliberately design a dysfunctional system?
Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod, which saved the lives of many people.
He also talked the gulf stream, or solved a European mystery of why Europe is warmer than, it “should be”.
He was rock star in Europe- or France, which was superpower of Europe/world.
So he should have had the wit to design a functional system of governmenent. Instead he included three parts; executive, legislature and judiciary. Each spends most of its time stopping the others from doing anything.
It’s the dumbest form of government I’ve ever seen.
Why do you think it was Ben Franklin? Mostly Madison and Hamilton, but really the whole bunch.
Who said that democracy was the worst form of govt, except for all the others? Churchill?
Leftists have been slowly dismantling the Constitution since Woodrow Wilson. But this Nation saved your asses twice in the 20th Century, or you’d be singing
Quite right, Troglodyte:
BRING BACK THE 3/5 CLAUSE!!!!!!!!!!!
That Dem Clause, caused the American Civil War
“Benjamin Franklin was an American polymath who was active as a writer, scientist, inventor, statesman, diplomat, printer, publisher, and political philosopher. Among the leading intellectuals of his time, Franklin was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, a drafter and signer of the United States Declaration of Independence, and the first United States Postmaster General.
As a scientist, he was a major figure in the American Enlightenment and the history of physics for his studies of electricity, and for charting and naming the current still known as the Gulf Stream. As an inventor, he is known for the lightning rod, bifocals, and the Franklin stove, among others.
….
From 1785 to 1788, he served as governor of Pennsylvania. He initially owned and dealt in slaves but, by the late 1750s, he began arguing against slavery, became an abolitionist, and promoted education and the integration of African Americans into U.S. society. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
> That Dem clause.
The Dems did not exist at the time, gb.
Madison was a wealthy slave-owner who favored republican government over democratic assembly, btw.
“The Republican Party, also referred to as the GOP (“Grand Old Party”), is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States. The GOP was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists who opposed the KansasNebraska Act, which allowed for the potential expansion of chattel slavery into the western territories”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)
Obviously GOP came later, and when Lincoln was president, his opposition seceded from the duly elected US government.
“The Democratic Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States. Founded in 1828,
…”
“The historical predecessor of the Democratic Party is considered to be the Democratic-Republican Party.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)
Which called it’s itself the Republican Party.
US is republic, and one could also say a Democratic Republic.
Also US government borrowed a lot from the British govt, and same way as French govt borrowed a lot from American govt, and related specifically regarding what all American founders were argued about- it was in the news, French intellectual argued about the news- just we do today.
The French also called themselves a republic [a guess due to it’s colonies]. US stopped being the colonies, and made States- with all the same federal rights.
The Constitution grew out of efforts to reform the Articles of Confederation, an earlier constitution which provided for a loose alliance of states with a weak central government. From May 1787 through September 1787, delegates from twelve of the thirteen states convened in Philadelphia, where they wrote a new constitution. Two alternative plans were developed at the convention. The nationalist majority, soon to be called “Federalists”, put forth the Virginia Plan, a consolidated government based on proportional representation among the states by population. The “old patriots”, later called “Anti-Federalists”, advocated the New Jersey Plan, a purely federal proposal, based on providing each state with equal representation. The Connecticut Compromise allowed for both plans to work together. Other controversies developed regarding slavery and a Bill of Rights in the original document.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Constitution
After proposed compromises of one-half by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and three-fourths by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the three-fifths ratio proposed by James Madison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise
–Willard says:
January 9, 2023 at 9:32 PM
After proposed compromises of one-half by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and three-fourths by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the three-fifths ratio proposed by James Madison.–
But paragraph continue:
…But this amendment ultimately failed, falling two states short of the unanimous approval required to amend the Articles of Confederation (New Hampshire and New York opposed it).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise
The only relevant is James Madison split the difference to get agreement, but it ultimately failed.
So explains history of the 3/5th number.
It’s definitively, what is meant by “trivial”.
And it doesn’t say anything significant about Benjamin Harrison, or “several New Englanders” or James Madison.
But gives history of 3/5th number, which probably cited, in future arguments/ negotiation in the topic.
And if know anything about politicians, misused by these later politicians.
Instead further down in linked wiki:
“By including three-fifths of slaves (who had no voting rights) in the legislative apportionment, the Three-fifths Compromise provided additional representation in the House of Representatives of slave states compared to the free states. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 seats, but would have had 33 had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 seats out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 seats out of 240, instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had additional influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court until the American Civil War.[15]: 5657 In addition, the Southern states’ insistence on equal numbers of slave and free states, which was maintained until 1850, safeguarded the Southern bloc in the Senate as well as Electoral College votes.”
What is Southern bloc, wiki:
“The Solid South or the Southern bloc was the electoral voting bloc of the states of the Southern United States for issues that were regarded as particularly important to the interests of Democrats in those states. The Southern bloc existed especially between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. During this period, the Democratic Party overwhelmingly controlled southern state legislatures, and most local, state and federal officeholders in the South were Democrats.”
Or as I said:
“That Dem Clause”
Oops, it continues:
“During the late 1800s and early 1900s, Southern Democrats disenfranchised blacks in all Southern states, along with a few non-Southern states doing the same as well. This resulted essentially in a one-party system, in which a candidate’s victory in Democratic primary elections was tantamount to election to the office itself. White primaries were another means that the Democrats used to consolidate their political power, excluding blacks from voting in primaries.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South
It is always hilarious to see people revising history to make it appear that today’s liberals were responsible for past wrongs.
Earlier Bill tried to claim Global Warming was a big political issue in the late 60s.
Grand Solar Minimum update, still in lockstep with SC24,
no poly-idiotic charts here
https://i.postimg.cc/5NwRHWd4/comp12.jpg
Would you please include a comparison to the Maunder minimum, as that’s where it is claimed we are heading.
tony querty…”It took me 15 minutes. How many THOUSANDS of hours have you wasted commenting here and on other denial sites?”
***
You not only waste your time with inane projects, you indulge in red-herring arguments. I asked you to learn some physics and you come back with a smelly fish.
Furthermore, you took a shot at me for mispelling my name. At least I am misspelling my real name, while you hide behind an unimaginative nym. I guess in the outback of Australia you have nothing better to do than harass roos.
I have plenty of physics under my academic belt, thanks all the same. I’d tell you to learn some physics, but apparently you get to choose from ignorance what physics to accept and what not.
You still haven’t figured out the meaning of my name.
And I have never seen a live kangaroo outside a zoo.
It’s interesting how you choose insults which will upset people you are not attacking, such as needlessly referring to Germans as “krauts”.
0 for 3 for you
When the ignoramus Robertson insults people living in Germany ‘krauts’ (including those who aren’t even German), that’s less than nothing compared to his insult against Isaac Newton’s major translator Andrew Motte: he named him last year a ‘cheating son of a bitch’.
The reason for the insult was that Robertson was too stupid to realize that when reading a page in the Principia he went straight from the main text to the footnote, and thus brazenly thought Motte had mistranslated Newton.
That tells us about how disrespectful and reckless Robertson really is.
brandon…”after two weeks, due to dispersion/dilution, water vapour heating started to dominate the top-of-the-atmosphere radiative forcing, leading to a net warming of the climate system”.
***
Same old, same old. They are claiming that heat can be transferred via radiation from a much colder part of the atmosphere to the much warmer surface.
Have any of you heard of and understood the 2nd law of thermodynamics? I will restate it for you as coined by Clausius…heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body.
Some alarmists today have taken liberties and re-stated the 2nd law, without proof. They have presumed that a certain unverified ‘net energy’ can overrule the 2nd law if it is positive.
The 2nd law is not about net energy, it is about net thermal energy only. However, to get a net heat transfer, we’d need at least two heat sources, yet the alarmists feel it’s ok to mix radiative energy (IR) with heat, to produce a net energy.
Here’s the reasoning. The Earth is radiating energy to the atmosphere while the atmosphere radiates a tiny fraction of that energy back to the surface. The direction of surface to atmosphere is deemed to be positive, because it is much larger, and since it is much larger than energy radiated in the opposite direction ***FROM THE ATMOSPHERE*** (ie. not solar energy) it is always positive. That is claimed as justification (radiation from surface being positive) to claim the 2nd law is not contradicted, since the energy flow is positive.
This reasoning is so amateurish as to be not worth addressing. However, I will persist. The 2nd law is ***ABOUT HEAT TRANSFER***. There is nothing stated in the words of Clausius about electromagnetic energy nor is there a reference in the mathematical equivalent of the 2nd law (entropy) about radiation.
Entropy is expressed as, S = T.integral dq. Nothing in there but heat(q) and temperature T, the latter being required to be constant. Entropy was invented by Clausius as a mathematical expression of the 2nd law. He stated the meaning of entropy as the sum of infinitesimal heat transfers at a temperature T. If a process is reversible, S = 0, if it is irreversible, S > 0.
S > 0 is the key. Entropy does not apply to processes in which heat is transferred from cold to hot. Heat must be transferred hot to cold.
I have tried to make this point till blue in the face. Heat ***IS NOT*** transferred ***as heat energy*** by radiation. It is impossible for heat to move from a hotter body to a cooler body via radiation. The truth is, heat is dissipated in the hotter body, being converted to a totally different energy, EM. If the receiving body is cooler, that EM can be converted back to heat in the cooler body.
One might claim energy is transferred but its not heat. It is electromagnetic energy. Even that’s not correct, since the EM is lost at the cooler target when converted back to heat.
Therefore, so-called heat transfer via radiation is not possible because there are two energy conversions involved.
The process is as follows from hotter source to cooler target…
-heat is converted to EM, and heat is lost in process
-EM moves through space
-EM is converted back to heat at the target provided target is cooler than source.
-heat loss and heat gain are entirely local processes
Alarmists who formulated the theory of a net balance of energy are living more than a century ago. Between 1850 and 1913, scientists believed that heat moved through air and a vacuum as heat rays. If that was the case, they would be able to claim a net balance of energy but its not the case. Heat and EM cannot exist at the same time between a source and a target. There is essentially zero heat energy to measure.
Old Gordo insists on repeating his display of his ignorance of Clausius and his Second Law of thermodynamics. He misses the most basic concept of Clausius’ work, as described in Chapter 12 of his 1875 text, “The Mechanical Theory of Heat”, that being a focus on energy conversion to work by mechanical devices, especially the steam engine. Those devices could also be used to move thermal energy from lower temperatures reservoirs to higher temperatures, but doing so requires the addition of mechanical energy to accomplish that goal, thus the 2nd Law.
His treatment of radiation energy transfer is based on the velocities of the respective radiant energy, as Gordo notes:
That is to say, thermal radiation was an exchange of mass dependent on the velocity of each source, as Clausius describes in his math.
He begins his treatment of exchange between similar bodies considers the energy emitted by each body which is absorbed by the other, thus there is a flow of this mechanical energy from each to the other. He states:
If the two bodies are of equal temperature, the flows are equal and cancel out. If one is cooler than the other, there will be less energy moving from the cooler to the hotter one. But that also implies that there is always a net flow of energy from the higher to lower temperature, which Gordo continues to ignore.
Clausius doesn’t say what happens to the temperatures of the two bodies in the alternate case where the energy flow is specified and the temperatures must be calculated, as in the Green Plate Effect. The result in this situation is that the back radiation from the colder to the hotter will increase the temperature of the hotter source, as compared to a case without the radiation from the colder body, such as for a single body in deep space.
This is one of the better deconstructions of Gordon’s standard mantras I’ve seen. That Clausius quote is clutch, thank you.
Of course cold bodies radiate energy to hot bodies, as well as hot bodies radiating energy to cold bodies…
…and of course heat always flows from hot to cold (unless there is some work being done, somewhere).
That doesn’t actually contradict what Gordon said. Only the phrase "double exchange of heat" stands as the obvious mistake; in more recent parlance, that would be "double exchange of energy".
Nowhere in that quote does Clausius suggest anything about whether or not hot bodies absorb IR radiation from colder bodies, or to what extent.
How does the receiving body know whether incident photons came from a warmer or cooler body than itself?
An object doesn’t know where the arriving photons came from. That’s nonsense.
Photon absorp.tion is determined by compatibility between photon wavelength and the target molecule’s vibrational frequency.
That’s why ice cubes can NOT boil water.
> An object doesnt know where the arriving photons came from. Thats nonsense.
That was more or less the point, C00kie.
> Thats why ice cubes can NOT boil water.
Oop, you changed your mind.
Now Brandon, is that the truth? Did I really change my mind?
The fact that you misrepresent people is because you have NOTHING.
I know you will be trolling here all day, but I won’t be responding. You know the rules.
> Did I really change my mind?
If you stand by this post, then the receiving object knows whether the emitting object is warmer or cooler than itself:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1339555
I made the factually correct statement:
"Nowhere in that quote does Clausius suggest anything about whether or not hot bodies absorb IR radiation from colder bodies, or to what extent."
…and nothing more.
And Graham punts.
…and Brandy Guts falsely accuses.
Graham wishes.
“Nowhere in that quote does Clausius suggest anything about whether IR radiation must follow 2LoT” is a factually correct statement.
Where in the quote does Clausius suggest anything about whether or not hot bodies absorb IR radiation from colder bodies, or to what extent, Brandy Guts?
Only Swanson opined:
"He begins his treatment of exchange between similar bodies considers the energy emitted by each body which is absorbed by the other, thus there is a flow of this mechanical energy from each to the other."
Yet that statement, which you obviously agreed with, is not supported by the quote he provided. Clausius mentions nothing about absorp.tion.
If the cold body is to warm at the expense of the hot body, it must absorb at least some of the energy. Yet Clausius mentions nothing about absorp.tion.
How silly you are, Graham.
Clausius mentions nothing about absorp.tion.
And Graham punts, again.
grammie pups wrote:
Clausius wrote, (1875, chapter XII, section I):
The puppet clown is wrong again. Better luck next time. Maybe you should try doing your homework first. Naa
Clausius mentions nothing about absorp.tion, in the initial quote you gave, which is what we were discussing.
How does Graham imagine radiation from a hot body to a cold one warms the latter if the latter does not absorb it?
For the love of Mary.
I don’t need to imagine anything, Brandy Guts. Swanson produced a quote. From that quote, can it be concluded that Clausius thought warm bodies absorb energy from cooler bodies?
Correct, simple, honest and direct answer: no.
Swanson has now introduced two more quotes. Do they mean that the initial quote Swanson produced now demonstrates that Clausius thought warm bodies absorb energy from cooler bodies?
Correct, simple, honest and direct answer: no.
Is Swanson actually trying to claim an imaginary object (black body) is “proof” that “cold” can raise the temperature of “hot”?
He really is braindead.
> From [the first] quote, can it be concluded that Clausius thought warm bodies absorb energy from cooler bodies?
If not, then we likewise cannot conclude that the cold body absorbs energy from the warm one.
Which is silly, and why Graham keeps ducking the question.
Yes, Brandy Guts, your logic is silly.
It’s your logic, dummy.
Absolutely not, Brandy Guts.
Point to where Clausius said the cold body absorbs radiation from the hot one.
Brandon understands little of the relevant physics. He seems to believe that all objects behave as imaginary black bodies. He can’t even understand how stupid that is.
Photon absorp.tion varies with objects and temperatures. That’s why objects have different colors. It’s also the reason ice cubes can NOT boil water.
These concepts are actually fairly straightforward, but not if you’re a braindead cult idiot.
He didn’t. He did not mention anything about absorp.tion in that quote.
So I don’t assume anything about absorp.tion from that quote.
> He didnt.
FINALLY
> He did not mention anything about absorp.tion in that quote. So I dont assume anything about absorp.tion from that quote.
How else would the cold body get warmer *unless* it absorbed radiation from the hot one?
Sure, you can make the inference, if you wish, that the cold body must be warming because it is absorbing energy from the hotter.
Doesn’t mean you can assume the hot body absorbs energy from the cooler. There is absolutely nothing written in that initial quote to justify making that assumption.
Nothing.
> Sure, you can make the inference, if you wish, that the cold body must be warming because it is absorbing energy from the hotter.
If he meant that the cooler object warmed by some other mechanism than absorbing radiation from the warmer one, don’t you think he would have specified that other thing?
Doesn’t mean you can assume he thought the hot body absorbs energy from the cooler. There is absolutely nothing written in that initial quote to justify making that assumption.
Nothing.
We’ve agreed that Clausius meant that cold absorbs radiant energy from hot. I submit that any honest, rational person would take “simultaneous double exchange” to mean the converse is true unless otherwise qualified, which it isn’t.
You are jumping to conclusions, Brandy Guts. There is a simultaneous double exchange of energy because the cold body is radiating to the hot body, and the hot body is radiating to the cold body. You might be able to infer that the cold body absorbs energy from the hot body, because “the general result…always consists, as is established by experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter”, however there is nothing in that initial quote to suggest that the hotter body absorbs energy from the cooler.
Graham still can’t help but equivocate on whether the cold body absorbs from hot.
Another false accusation.
[Graham] You might be able to infer that the cold body absorbs energy from the hot body
Yes, as in “you might be able to do this but it doesn’t mean you can do that”.
Yes, as in you are waffling on whether Clausius meant that cold absorbs from hot, i.e., equivocating.
Why are you so afraid of the obvious.
No, you have misunderstood…and talking to someone who keeps misunderstanding whilst falsely accusing is rather dull. I get enough of that with talking to your personality double.
Do you or do you not believe that Clausius thought cold objects absorb radiation from warm ones.
As should have been obvious from my previous comments: yes.
[Graham] You might be able to infer
[Also Graham] As should have been obvious
Brandy Guts, when somebody says "you might be able to do x, but that doesn’t mean you can do y", it is commonly understood that x is accepted.
There’s a distinct difference between you might be able to do x and you can do x.
Well, this is worthwhile.
Graham plays dumb again.
Or maybe he’s not playing.
Once again…Brandy Guts, when somebody says "you might be able to do x, but that doesn’t mean you can do y", it is commonly understood that x is accepted. I guess you’re unaware of the convention. Oh well.
Moving on from this complete non-point…did you have anything to actually add about the original thing we were discussing?
[Graham] I dont assume anything about absorp.tion from that quote.
[Also Graham] it is commonly understood that x is accepted
So nothing to add accept childish gotchas that reveal you don’t know the difference between an assumption and an inference?
“…as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely to hot“.
That is not in dispute. Hot and cold bodies exchange energy via radiation, because all bodies above 0 K radiate energy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Noticed how this silly food fight prevented Gentle Graham from answering your question about the photon, BG.
Yes.
Well, you got an answer to that question from somebody else, Brandy Guts. I was making one point, and one point only, as I’m well within my rights to do.
Noticed how Gentle Graham responded to your question by staking an irrelevant negative claim that shifted the focus on himself, BG?
This was my original point, and has been my point throughout:
"Nowhere in that quote does Clausius suggest anything about whether or not hot bodies absorb IR radiation from colder bodies, or to what extent."
I made it at 11:11 AM.
Brandon’s question came at 11:28 AM.
A recap:
Bordon repeats the Sky Dragon Crank Master Argument.
ES shows Bordon a receipt and offers an explainer.
BG thanks ES for that.
Gentle Graham tries to divert the topic on himself by appealing to literalism.
This works for a while, until we all realize that literalism has a short shelf life.
Gentle Graham starts to gaslight gently.
Here we are.
Since Gentle Graham has NOTHING left, why not pay due diligence to the Sky Dragon Crank Master Argument?
I don’t want the discussion to be about me at all, Little Willy. You’re the one who tries to always make it about me. It wouldn’t even surprise me if you were the DREMT impersonator.
Gentle Graham shows that appealing to correctness can indeed be a fallacy!
What was I supposed to write? "The factually correct statement was made:…"?
BG might appreciate how Gentle Graham returns to playing dumb.
Readers might appreciate:
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
"Trolling".
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Nowhere in that quote does Clausius suggest anything about whether or not hot bodies absorb IR radiation from colder bodies”
Not true. Let’s bold the relevant part.
“…not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
In modern parlance, we would call this an exchange of energy, rather than heat. And Clausius most definitely suggests this occurrence in that quote. ‘Simultaneous exchange’ is not muddy wording, unless you don’t know the meaning of ‘exchange’.
exchange (n) : an act of giving one thing and receiving another (especially of the same kind) in return.
Clausius expounds further on this in his 4th memoir – again, replace the word ‘heat’ with ‘energy’:
“In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
Yes, Clausius views the colder and warmer bodies exchanging (heat) energy with each other.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1425372
That’s exactly your argument that I replied to. I even quoted you saying the same thing in my post.
Do you not know what the word “exchange” means?
exchange (n) : an act of giving one thing and receiving another (especially of the same kind) in return.
“Simultaneous double heat exchange”
It means that the warmer and colder body both impart and absorb (heat) energy to/from each other.
Now, unless you have an issue with the English language, what is the problem with understanding the meaning of the word “exchange”?
And Clausius says the same thing elsewhere, remembering that he uses ‘heat’ where we would say ‘energy’:
“In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
interchange (n) : an exchange
Clausius sees the two bodies at different temperatures exchanging energies with each other. If he though that the warmer body did not receive energy from the cooler one, he would not have described an exchange.
barry, as much as you want “exchange” to imply or mean “absorb”, it does not.
Okay, so now you deny language.
absorb (v) : to take something in
take in (v) : to admit; receive
exchange (n) : an act of giving one thing and receiving another (especially of the same kind) in return
“Simultaneous double heat exchange”
“the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies”
Sorry, you are just denying here. Which is why your counters are pure assertion and absent of argument.
the mutual double exchange is also corroborated by standard physical equations for radiative transfer between bodies.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/black_body_radiation.htm
And all these discuss the exchange of energy between two different bodies resulting in the NET result that heat always flows from hot to cold.
Both things happen simultaneously. As has been said here for some years.
Whereas not one of the people expressing the strange idea that warm bodies do not absorb radiation from cooler bodies has ever produced a single reputable source to corroborate their mangled view, despite the years-long request for such. They’re just making it up.
I’m quite content to let you continue with your denial of the language and the equations of radiative transfer.
barry, if we exchange glances, are we absorbing each other’s glances!?
Don’t be silly.
The Clausius quote doesn’t say what you want it to…
…and I’m not being dragged off topic from this one single point.
“if we exchange glances, are we absorbing each other’s glances”
Yep.
We both receive the information conveyed in those glances when we exchange them.
If you took in my glance but I didn’t notice yours, then it is no exchange.
So it seems you do not know what the word exchange means. At least we’ve got to the bottom of this matter.
I can’t think of an instance where the use of the word “exchange” includes one body not receiving from the other.
I suppose if you try really hard you might come up with something.
But if you have to try that hard to find a counter-example you’ve already lost the point.
Well, now you have another problem, barry. “Received” doesn’t mean “absorbed”, either.
Well, yes it does.
absorb (v) : to take something in
take in (v) : to admit; receive
But you’re quibbling.
Clausius’ meaning is quite clear. He is not saying that the (heat) energy of the cooler object bounces off the the warmer one. He is not saying that the transference is one way.
He says:
“not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
It takes some special denial to imagine that Calusius means only one body receives the (heat) energy of the other after reading that.
And one has to be particularly special to read this:
“In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it”
and conclude that the warmer body is absorbing no heat (energy) from the cooler one.
Clausius’ language is clearly about a two-way exchange, not about a one-way flow.
But clearly you’re very special. Oh well then.
And after 5 years and scores of requests for proponents to furnish any credible source, like a physics text, substantiating the weird view that radiation from a cooler object can’t be absorbed by a warmer one….
Still nothing.
Plenty of reputable references saying the opposite have been supplied, but not one helping the ‘skeptics’ with their ideological position.
This doesn’t seem to penetrate the certainty of the unskeptical skeptics. That you have nothing to corroborate your views is just conveniently overlooked.
barry, received energy can be either absorbed, transmitted, or reflected. Clausius makes no mention of what happens to any of the energy exchanged, so you should not assume anything about what he means re absorp.tion, which is what you are doing. You might be able to infer that the cold body absorbs energy from the hot body, because “the general result…always consists, as is established by experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter”, however there is nothing in that initial quote to suggest that the hotter body absorbs energy from the cooler. I know this is frustrating for you, but there you go…
…and, once again, I am not going to be led off-topic from this single point.
“there is nothing in that initial quote to suggest that the hotter body absorbs energy from the cooler”
Clausius says just that in 3 different portions of the quotes. Your denial of the meaning of words doesn’t change this.
Furthermore, Clausius is speaking in the context of blackbodies, which are perfect absorbers and neither reflect nor transmit radiation.
5 years on and you (or anyone else proposing this strange notion) still haven’t produced a single reputable physics text, note or paper explaining that warm objects cannot absorb radiation from warm objects.
Either you’ve looked for such a source and failed or you haven’t bothered to check. Either way, your view has no corroboration in the world of physics.
“Clausius says just that in 3 different portions of the quotes. Your denial of the meaning of words doesn’t change this.”
Incorrect, barry. A quick scan of the quote reveals no mention of the word “absorb” or “absorp.tion”. Thus any conclusions about “absorb” or “absorp.tion” must be inferred from the text, and the only valid inference (as discussed with Brandon) is that the cooler body absorbs energy from the warmer. As to whether or not the the warmer body absorbs energy from the cooler body, an honest reading of the text leaves that undetermined…
…and once again, I will not be led off-topic from this single point.
It’s kind of interesting to watch denial of something so straightforward in action.
“this simultaneous double exchange of heat”
“the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation”
“the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.”
The warmer body always receives less heat from the cooler body than it imparts to it.
And these are blackbodies, which by definition absorb all radiation falling on them.
There is no exception for warmer blackbodies receiving radiation from cooler sources anywhere in the physics literature.
Because it’s false.
But hey – finally prove us wrong and provide that missing physical text supporting your view.
I guess by now you know it doesn’t exist.
An honest player would at least address this point. Why are you ignoring it?
barry, we’re just at the stage of repeating ourselves. Readers will already have concluded as they wish. That’s that.
Your false accusations and diversions just reflect badly on you, by the way.
“Readers will already have concluded as they wish”
Yes indeed.
Good, good.
A human doesn’t absorb energy from cooler objects, but a Human can wear dead animal skins to keep it warmer.
Without the dead animal skins, the human would be colder in a cold ice age world. Or human is mammal which generates heat, if it’s in colder environment it can wear clothes so, it doesn’t need to generate as much heat to live.
About 1/2 of the planet Earth is near tropical conditions, and the human is a tropical creature which migrated out of tropical condition
and had develop the technology of clothes [made dead skins of animals and other stuff]. The human hasn’t yet used most of Earth surface to live- Earth’s Ocean. The human travels across ocean and gets food from the ocean, but the ocean has big waves which make hard to live on the ocean.
The human is also exploring space and will live in space. There are many problems living in space. One problem is it’s harder manage heat- in space a human needs spacesuit [or some other artificial environment to live, and must use refrigeration otherwise the human
over heats. Space is not really hot or cold, but the human generates
enough heat to live in a tropical Earth environment. But humans have make technology which generates far more heat than a human body- and that is harder to cool in a space environment. Earth has warm and colder conditions. A car can work in the tropics, but it’s too hot in space.
A human body cools mostly by evaporative cooling and spacesuit also is cooled by evaporative cooling. Evaporative cooling works well on Earth and in space.
Earth tropical ocean heat engine also “works by evaporative cooling.
gb…”A human doesnt absorb energy from cooler objects, but a Human can wear dead animal skins to keep it warmer.
Without the dead animal skins, the human would be colder in a cold ice age world”.
***
As Swenson likes to point out, clothes on a dead body will not make the body warmer. Humans generate heat internally to the point the heat raises body temperature to 37C. If we stop eating, the body temperature will gradually drop till the body is at room temperature.
When you consider that room temperature is 20C, the body is almost as hot again, some 17C above room temperature. You can walk around in a room at room temperature without much clothing on, but go outside where it’s 10C lower, with the same clothing, and you’ll soon be shivering as hypothermia sets in.
We use clothes, not to warm our bodies, but to reduce the amount of heat lost to the environment. Clothes do not warm you, they slow heat loss, enabling the body temperature to remain higher than without clothes, in colder conditions.
“Clothes do not warm you, they slow heat loss, enabling the body temperature to remain higher than without clothes, in colder conditions.”
I think vegan with just clothes on in 15 C air temperature, would eventually, freeze to death.
And what is known, is if insulate a body enough, human body will over heat and die. And one way to kill someone is preventing a human body from cooling from it’s evaporative cooling mechanism.
Such as wrap someone in plastic- or put in someone spacesuit without a cooling mechanism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxcWX8vKvfs
SpaceX Starship Updates, Transporter 6, Stoke Space & A Crazy Future Awaits Compilation
I thought this video was pretty good.
What Musk said was Mars could eventually become like Earth- I disagree. There are number of reasons, it can’t. One is that Mars
has a different amount of Gravity than Earth does.
This “might” be a big problem, or Mars might better for Humans and life because it has a lower gravity. We simply do not know.
But is just one reason Mars is not like Earth.
Another thing is a problem with Earth, is it has a finite amount of cheap energy, and though solar energy is better than Earth in terms of making electrical power for a electrical grid, one has no reason to assume Mars doesn’t have same problem as Earth has- a finite amount cheap energy.
Venus orbit most likely more significant than Mars, but Venus orbit
requires importing stuff. And what it would best at, is importing stuff from Space rocks and all that beyond Mars orbit. And Venus is better than Earth orbit or Mars orbit to go beyond Mars orbit- Venus orbit is best orbital distance [unless want to go even closer to the Sun.
Using Venus orbit is something I call a requirement for Mars settlements.
Both Mars and Venus use, are dependent on humans using artificial gravity.
Musk should test artificial- he do it, very cheaply just by using his Falcon-9 rockets.
This probably better than buying Twitters and cost him 1/50th of cost
and even make him more money, than twitter.
“A human doesn’t absorb energy from cooler objects”
A human absorbs energy from every part of the environment radiating towards them. Radiative absorp.tion, unlike emission, is not dependent on temperature.
DREMT
YOU: “Nowhere in that quote does Clausius suggest anything about whether or not hot bodies absorb IR radiation from colder bodies, or to what extent.”
It does not have to. This fact has been experimentally verified by the host of this blog. Others have also done experiments to validate this fact that a hot object does absorb IR from a colder one.
The equation used in all radiant heat transfer applications clearly demonstrates this to be the case.
If you persist to ignore science then you will be lumped with the three idiots that haunt this blog with endless unscientific posts. The Three are Clint R (the dumbest of the three), Gordon Robertson (dumb enough to get his science from Gary Novak), Swenson who is so mixed up he is unable to think clearly.
I had thought you might be an intelligent and thinking skeptic that knew some real science. Please do not think as these three idiots. Three stupid posters in quite enough. I would like rational skeptics that know science to offer some challenges to accepted dogma, not just made up BS and endless opinions.
Norman, you’re going off-piste from my point almost immediately.
Here is my point:
Swanson is claiming that Clausius states something that he doesn’t, in fact, state.
That’s it. Whether or not hot bodies absorb radiation from colder bodies, and to what extent, is kind of besides the point.
Swanson…was…wrong. That’s it.
Norman, you’ve been in hiding. I almost forgot about you….
Now that you’re back, did you ever find a valid technical reference for your belief that two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface will add so that the surface reaches a temperature of 325K?
You know, that’s the nonsense that results in ice cubes boiling water. That’s the kind of anti-science you believe in.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Grammis pups, the phrase “double exchange of heat” is a quote. Of course, we all know the science has progressed in the past 150 years, but so what? The point is that even 150 years ago, it was OBVIOUS that there was an energy transfer from the colder to the warmer body, at the same time as that in the opposite direction from the warmer to cooler.
Gordo has repeatedly stated that there is no transfer from cooler to warmer body, so this single quote rebuts his error.
Incorrect, Swanson. Gordon maintains that energy from a colder body is not absorbed by the hotter body…
…not that energy isn’t exchanged between the two bodies. As far as I’m aware, he accepts that a colder body radiates energy to a hot body, and a hot body radiates energy to a cool body.
So your quote does not refute Gordon. It doesn’t mention anything about absorp.tion, and it would need to in order to refute him.
You…were…wrong.
grammie pups, Clausius was speaking in the technical language of the day when writing: double exchange of heat. You, a usual, are playing another semantic game claiming that “heat” in that context is not the same as “energy”, i.e., “thermal IR radiant energy”.
You are welcome to translate Clausius’ book using modern terminology, if you want too. Or, you could simply read a modern text on radiation heat transfer. I expect that you won’t undertake any such an effort, instead having fun flipping the meanings of words to suit your denialist world view.
Old Gordo can speak for himself, since this is his favorite reference.
You…were…wrong.
swannie…”claiming that heat in that context is not the same as energy, i.e., thermal IR radiant energy.
***
Heat is energy…thermal energy. Radiation is energy too…electromagnetic energy. When an electron radiates EM it loses kinetic energy, which is heat.
Heat is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms. EM is defined as an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. What would those forms of energy possibly have in common?
This is a no-brainer. When a body is heated, its constituent electrons move en masse to higher kinetic energy orbital level. If you apply too much heat, the electrons will jump right out of the atoms causing the body to melt or break down.
When the body cools, the electrons move, en masse, down to lower kinetic energy levels. Same when they all emit EM.
swannie…”it was OBVIOUS that there was an energy transfer from the colder to the warmer body, at the same time as that in the opposite direction from the warmer to cooler”.
***
It may have been obvious via theory but Bohr stood all those theories on their heads when he revealed that heat is converted to EM when electrons move from a higher level of KE to a lower level. Remember, heat is that KE. It is the energy that represents the level of energy in an atom wrt orbital energy levels and the vibration of atoms in solids.
Sadly the section of the work of Clausius applying to heat radiation require revision and he is not around to do it. Even more sad is the fact that certain modern scientists are still hung up on the anachronism that heat travels through space as rays.
Having said that, the rest of the work of Clausius involving the 1st law (his definition of U), the 2nd law, and entropy, still stands.
> Sadly the section of the work of Clausius applying to heat radiation require revision and he is not around to do it.
Maybe you should let Graham know about that, Gordon. He’s struggling a bit with it.
Another false accusation.
Gordon is saying Clausius is wrong on this point. You’re not.
Wrong on what exact point?
Graham plays dumb AGAIN.
What exact point, Brandy Guts? Be specific, and I can help you out.
WHAT HAVE WE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR THE LAST TWO HOURS, GRAHAM
Not sure, really. You’ve just been nit-picking at various pathetically irrelevant details for the last couple of hours.
Prior to that, the original topic was how the quote from Clausius that Swanson initially provided does not contain anything to suggest Clausius thinks the warmer body absorbs energy from the colder.
Don’t think me and Gordon disagree on that.
> Dont think me and Gordon disagree on that.
Then you agree Clausius meant that hot also absorbs energy radiated by cold.
No, Brandy Guts. That would be a non-sequitur.
[Swanson] it was OBVIOUS that there was an energy transfer from the colder to the warmer body, at the same time as that in the opposite direction from the warmer to cooler
[Gordon] Bohr stood all those theories on their heads […] the work of Clausius applying to heat radiation require revision
Yes. So Gordon thinks the energy from the colder body is not absorbed by the warmer body.
Indeed Graham, but that’s not what is being disputed.
Turns out I was wrong about Gordon’s disagreement with Clausius:
So he apparently does read that passage the same way that you do.
That’s what I thought, from reading Gordon’s arguments over the years.
Indeed, BG.
Bordon, like Gentle Graham, reads *conversely from cold to hot bodies* and both infer that Clausius does not really mean from cold to hot bodies.
“…as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely to hot“.
That is not in dispute. Hot and cold bodies exchange energy via radiation, because all bodies above 0 K radiate energy.
I don’t think Gordon is saying the cold body doesn’t radiate, Little Willy. However, there’s no talking to you, so think what you like.
Gentle Graham does not always infer stuff, but when he does it is to help out a Sky Dragon crank or to gaslight.
More false accusations from a tedious troll.
Gentle Graham could make Bordon say just about anything.
He is still stuck with his *heat transferred via radiation* which, shall we say, does not work literally.
I’m stuck with another easy win.
Bordon claims that the second law is not about net energy.
He also makes the same silly assertion, with a NEVER in caps lock.
And Gentle Graham gently gaslights commenters into thinking Bordon did not assert the orthodox Sky Dragon crank dogma.
Yet more false accusations, from a tedious troll.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
Here we are:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1425863
Yes, what an amazing comment that was, Little Willy. So worth linking to it. Well done.
🤦
Yes, what an amazing emoji that was, Little Willy. So worth posting it. Well done.
Years ago already, I wrote about Clausius’s work dated 1887
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
DIE MECHANISCHE WAERMETHEORIE
von R. CLAUSIUS
DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTAENDIGTE AUFLAGE.
ERSTER BAND.
…
Braunschweig, 1887
…
ABSCHNITT XII.
Die Concentration von Waerme- und Lichtstrahlen und die Grenzen ihrer Wirkung.
1. Gegenstand der Untersuchung.
…
Was ferner die in gewoehnlicher Weise stattfindende Waermestrahlung anbetrifft, so ist es freilich bekannt, dass nicht nur der warme Koerper dem kalten, sondern auch umgekehrt der kalte Koerper dem warmen Waerme zustrahlt, aber das Gesammtresultat dieses gleichzeitig stattfindenden doppelten Waermeaustausches besteht, wie man als erfahrungsmaessig feststehend ansehen kann, immer darin, dass der kaeltere Koerper auf Kosten des waermeren einen Zuwachs an Waerme erfaehrt.
i.e.
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
…
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
…
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
*
This is the culminating point in Clausius’ work.
But it is permanently discredited by the Pseudo-Skeptics, especially by those who endlessly repeat Clausius’ statements of 1854 – because they fit their narrative.
No, not discredited at all. Scroll up. Read.
Done:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1425221
So, not discredited at all.
All that cut-and-paste from Bin, in two languages no less, and he still can’t understand it!
What Bin misses: “the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.”
IOW, hot can warm cold, but cold can NOT warm hot.
None of the cult idiots can understand this. They’re braindead.
Next thing you see is Bindiclown reposting Ptolemaic system
#4
I was sure that whenever the little ankle-biting dachshund sees a tree, it would think, Oh! Time to get rid of a little pile.
Your replies to my comments get each time dumber and dumber.
binny…re Clausius…”What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one”.
***
How many times do I need to repeat this before it sinks in to certain obtuse minds?
Clausius and other scientists believed that heat was transferred through space as heat rays. All of them can be excused such a belief since the electron was not discovered till the 1890s and Bohr did not relate the interaction of EM and the electron till 1913.
Unfortunately, Clausius had it wrong about heat radiation and heat being transferred between bodies through space via radiation. However, he claimed in the same section you quoted that heat transfer by radiation must obey the 2nd law. Therefore, it was clear to Clausius that any energy can only be transferred from a source of higher potential energy to a target of lower potential energy.
The tragedy is that certain scientist today still think that heat can be transferred through air as heat via radiation. Hence the anachronism about heat radiation and the nonsense about a net balance of energy to bypass the 2nd law..
By continuing to paraphrase the words of Clausius as you do, you express an abysmal ignorance of basic thermodynamics and the quantum theory of Bohr.
Robertson
How many time do I need to repeat that you are this blog’s greatest ignoramus, and are denying everything because you pick things out of contrarian blogs and deliberately ignore real science?
From Clausius to Bohr: Your pseudo-knowledge is simply shameful.
You don’t even understand why Einstein perfectly succeeded in determining the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and Venus, and think a guy like you could ever impress me?
Ha ha ha.
You don’t behave like an engineer, but rather like a retired, opinionated German elementary school teacher.
A secondary low with heavy precipitation reaches California. It will stop over the mountains.
https://i.ibb.co/6NY85Kc/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-01-07-104210.png
One more low is waiting in the Pacific lined up for California. It too will bring heavy precipitation.
https://i.ibb.co/s26KRXS/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-01-07-110610.png
In two days another cold front will reach California, in four days another.
Is the global sea surface temperature dropping because La Nina is strengthening?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Can’t answer your question Ren but I am looking forward to spring. We are 16 days into winter and I am looking forward to longer and warmer days.
Meantime, I am making the best of the present. No point wasting time complaining about winter.
Last January, a large underwater volcano, Tonga-Hunga, erupted. Satellites were able to catch the dramatic explosion into the upper atmosphere. Such an explosion had never been witnessed in the satellite era.
Within weeks, there was an obvious effect on global temperatures. The link to warming was reported all throughout the cult, even from cult headquarters, NASA-Goddard.
Could last January’s Tonga-Hunga eruption have contributed to 2022 being “the 7th Warmest of 44-Year Satellite Record”?
Ya betcha!
Now try explaining that to the cult idiots that believe ice cubes can boil water….
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/sun/nasa-mission-finds-tonga-volcanic-eruption-effects-reached-space
What do you see as the point of copy-pasting your earlier post?
Let me copy-paste mine:
Heads up after Pinatubo and El Chichon it took almost a year for the sulphur dioxide to envelope the globe and initiate cooling. Please explain what you know about the physics of water vapour which would cause a lag only 20% as long. Be specific now
Sorry Ant, but this involves physics. Neither sulfur dioxide nor water vapor caused the warming seen.
You KNOW I never claimed it has anything to do with sulphur dioxide.
And if it wasn’t water vapour, explain this post from you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1391075
or this one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1358674
It seems every post you’ve made on the subject up to this point has blamed water vapour. Has “the physics” changed since then?
Ant, your failure to understand clear comments is not my problem.
In your first link, I was quoting NASA.
In your second link, I was clearly questioning the water vapor connection.
Quit trying to rewrite my comments, and start trying to understand them.
So at the time of those posts you were unaware of “the physics” which has led to you making this claim FOR THE FIRST TIME.
See Ant, you can pervert, distort, misrepresent to the point you no longer make any sense.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Summary so far:
Clint has up to a day ago suggested that excess water vapour from the eruption has led to warming.
When it was pointed out that there would need to be a lag of close to a year for this to happen (assuming it could happen), he invented another mechanism. However he refuses to share this mechanism, instead calling this “the physics”, of which apparently only he is aware.
Apparently all you have to do is yell “I have a theory that A caused B” and suddenly that theory becomes fact despite not providing a mechanism for that process. And don’t even give the slightest clue as to what this mechanism might be, lest someone start googling to prove them wrong. Who would have known science was so easy.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Apparently all you have to do is yell “I have a theory that A caused B” and suddenly that theory becomes fact despite not providing a mechanism for that process.”
A couple of points. I can’t see any reference to a “theory”, so. I assume you made that bit up.
Second, you are confused about the nature of the universe. Many things are accepted on the basis of experience, without a theory of any sort. Newtons Laws of Motion, for example. The first law. “A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.”
Go on fool, tell me why. What is the theory? What is the mechanism? You are an idiot trying to appear clever, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. You are probably stupid enough to believe in a magical greenhouse effect which you can’t even describe!
Dimwit.
Ant, it’s as Swenson implied — you’re making shit up.
For example, in your first sentence, where did I suggest “that excess water vapour from the eruption has led to warming.”?
You idiots can’t get anything right. You’ve got NOTHING.
So it’s not water vapour, and so until another mechanism is proposed and verified we’ll have to put that nonsense to bed.
Sorry Ant, but just because you don’t understand the science, you don’t get to “put that nonsense to bed”.
We don’t know what causes gravity, but you wouldn’t jump off a 20 story building, would you?
Quit making stuff up.
Pretty sure there’s more than just one data point correlating gravity with falling. As opposed to the two effects you are attempting to associate.
I did not notice cooling in the 1990s, it was a fraction of a degree C. I defy anyone to sense the warming we are screaming about since 1850, of about 1C. Go on, turn up your home thermometer 1C and see if you notice anything.
Remember, when you turn up a thermostatic, the furnace warms the home far more than what you feel from the blowing furnace.
” Could last Januarys Tonga-Hunga eruption have contributed to 2022 being the 7th Warmest of 44-Year Satellite Record?
Ya betcha!
Now try explaining that to the cult idiots that believe ice cubes can boil water… ”
*
For me, the true cult idiots are those who all the time
– are intentionally distorting and misrepresenting what others have written
and
– are guessing about this and that , but not even able to find and present data that matches their vague guess.
Here is a comparison of UAH’s lower stratosphere (LS) to their lower troposphere (LT) for the whole record:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gC_g3NQQi-J2GQMwXX8a04QpOAUk-SUj/view
It confirms what all ‘cult idiots’ know since longer time, namely that while the LT warms, the LS cools.
To avoid the claim that LS’ cooling since 1979 (-0.27 C / decade) would have been due to El Chichn and Pinatubo, let’s cut off till mid 1993:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/170Lzv7S58dfyXGvEKuZJonDlwwYKef40/view
and we see still the same dual behavior. Trends for 1993-2022 in C / decade
– LS: -0.11
– LT: +0.12
*
Cutting the story short: this means that no one should wonder about LT going a bit up when LS goes a bit down.
No, ice cubes can’t boil water, emitted photons don’t care about how their absorbing places, time is affected by speed and gravity, and as Newton explained, Moon rotates about its polar axis.
Best greetings to the Pseudo-Skeptics.
يا بطشا
You actually got some things correct, Bin.
You’re correct, ice cubes can NOT boil water. Congrats. Are you ready to now accept that two fluxes arriving the same surface (F1 and F2) do NOT result in the surface emitting F1 + F2?
Emitted photons do not “care” about their “absorbing places”, as photon absorp.tion is based on wavelength/frequency compatibility.
But, you’ve still got Moon wrong. It clearly is NOT rotating. Newton verified this, and we’ve got the simple model of the ball-on-a-string for his work.
Also, the warming effect from Tonga-Hunga coincides really well with 2023 UAH global anomalies.
Opps, that should be “2022 UAH global anomalies”.
” Also, the warming effect from Tonga-Hunga coincides really well with 2023 UAH global anomalies. ”
Where is your exact source for that? Or are you guessing again?
All what is known to us here is that the lower stratosphere cooled in 2022, as it does all the time.
There was indeed a strong cooling below 60 S between Aug and Nov 2022, as is shown here for Nov:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zPnQOT4wx-K0SuNgK7aFcNhG6MEEGi5V/view
but it had only a very small influence on the global data, the anomalies didn’t even move below -0.4C, nothing unusual at all.
*
Show us a REAL proof that the small LS cooling in 2022 was the cause for the small warming in the LT!
Bin defines “cult idiots”:
— are intentionally distorting and misrepresenting what others have written, and
— are guessing about this and that , but not even able to find and present data that matches their vague guess.
Pretty close Bin. Those are “results”, but the “causes” come from an ignorance of science and accepting what “experts” claim, without questioning.
For example, you accept WITHOUT questioning ancient astrologers claims that Moon is rotating about its axis. Yet, you don’t understand what “orbital motion without axial rotation” would look like. You likely have nightmares about the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string.
And, a cult idiot that can’t learn is a “braindead cult idiot”.
Stop dodging, Clint R.
Show us a REAL proof that the small LS cooling in 2022 was the cause for the small warming in the LT!
If you can’t then we will see that you are trolling once again.
Bin, building straw men is an amateur troll tactic.
I NEVER mentioned “LS cooling”.
Can’t you do any better?
As some have said, more than 90% of global warming is warming our cold ocean.
Higher CO2 levels might warm this cold ocean, but a warmed ocean is what causes global warming.
Or if ocean cools, global temperature lowers, if ocean is warmed global temperatures increase.
How it warms or cools is a complicated matter, but without warmer or cooler ocean you don’t have climate change. Though you have changes
in weather, or global weather.
Global climate is solely about the temperature of our ocean, and our ocean the coldest it’s been in 100 million years.
Or we are in a 33.9 million year icehouse climate [also called one of 5 known Ice Ages, Earth has been known to have.
In last 3 million of this Ice Age, our ocean has been the coldest it’s been in this last 33.9 million years. And in within last 3 million years, Greenland has developed an Ice Sheet.
Or for 30 million years of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, Greenland didn’t have an Ice Sheet.
Science of Solar Ponds Challenges the Climate Crisis
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/07/science-of-solar-ponds-challenges-the-climate-crisis/
Jim Steele explains solar ponds.
Though not sure he explains his title, though I do think our ocean does act like solar pond. Or I think our ocean is better solar pond than small solar ponds. It’s not that disagree with him… hmm what
comments say:
–jshotsky
January 7, 2023 6:50 am
Outstanding explanation! …–
,,,
Willis Eschenbach
Editor
Reply to
ferdberple
January 7, 2023 10:19 am
Sorry, but that cannot be true. See my post A Matter Of Some Gravity for the proof of that statement.
It doesnot add up
January 7, 2023 12:47 pm
Theres a lot to absorb here.
It deserves careful study and learning.
Well, if some people get it… and not sure why Willis says it can’t true. I guess he would disagree with me, when I say such things as ocean absorbs more than 80% of sunlight is absorbed by the ocean and
ocean a better solar pond, than your typical solar ponds.
But I am more interested in solar ponds on Mars.
brandon…I was having trouble finding the start of posts so I moved your down here.
“How does the receiving body know whether incident photons came from a warmer or cooler body than itself?”
***
It comes down to Bohr’s 1913 theory that stood science on its head. It is all about electron orbital energy levels. Electrons absorb and emit all the EM (your photons) in the universe. Protons in stars likely emit it as well but the identifiable frequencies to which we relate for EM are related to electron emissions.
Electromagnetic energy is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. An electron is a particle that carries a negative charge (electric field) and when the electron moves, the charge created a magnetic field. An electron in an atomic orbital is moving at a very high speed and it can generate an EM quantum of energy when the electron drops to a lower energy level.
Therein lies your answer. The spectra generated by elements are discrete lines and discrete frequencies. In order for an electron to absorb a quantum of EM that quantum needs to have a discrete frequency that corresponds to the absorbing electron’s angular frequency. I liken it to a resonance situation.
The frequency generated by electrons is related to the temperature of the emitting body. If the emitting body temperature is lower than the receiving body temperature, it cannot generate the required frequency to be absorbed by a hotter body.
Hence the 2nd law is intact.
*********************
“This is one of the better deconstructions of Gordons standard mantras Ive seen. That Clausius quote is clutch, thank you”.
***
You are being drawn in by Swannie’s nonsense. He is a 2nd law denier. See below.
Thanks for that rant, Bordon.
Let us see if Gentle Graham will follow you this far, or if he will try to pretend you never defend the Sky Dragon Crank Master Argument with that kind of nonsense.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
First you state that absor.ption can only occur at discrete frequencies.
Then you state that frequency is related to temperature of the emitting body.
If hot cannot absorb from cold because of an incompatibility in frequencies, it stands to reason the opposite is true.
“If hot cannot absorb from cold because of an incompatibility in frequencies, it stands to reason the opposite is true.”
Good point.
swannie…”He [GR]misses the most basic concept of Clausius work, as described in Chapter 12 of his 1875 text, The Mechanical Theory of Heat, that being a focus on energy conversion to work by mechanical devices, especially the steam engine. Those devices could also be used to move thermal energy from lower temperatures reservoirs to higher temperatures, but doing so requires the addition of mechanical energy to accomplish that goal, thus the 2nd Law”.
***
I don’t know how you derive your conclusions. Steam engines of the day ran on burning coal or wood. The product was heat and it was used to heat water till it produced steam. The expanding steam was used to drive pistons, which drove wheels.
Clausius based the 2nd law on a mistake by Carnot, till then the authority on heat engines. Carnot thought there were no losses in a heat engine and Clausius proved him wrong via his explanation of the 2nd law, which involved heat engine theory.
**********************
“as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely to hot;”
***
Unfortunately, Clausius and all scientists of his era believed that heat moved through space as heat rays. They were all wrong as proved by Bohr in 1913.
Your ravings about the green plate experiments, in which you tried to prove that heat was transferred cold to hot via radiation, was proved incorrect. We pointed out to you that the green plate was blocking radiation from the blue plate, hence reducing its ability to dissipate heat in a vacuum. Therefore the BP warmed. Nothing to do with heat being transferred cold to hot.
Old Gordo repeats an earlier claim about the GPE:
Of course, the GP absorbs thermal IR EM from the BP. That’s why it warms in my GP Demo after the GP is raised into position. But, then the GP’s emissions begin to increase and some of that energy is intercepted by the BP. Both plates have similar coatings with high emissivity and are both emitting and absorbing, the result is that the BP’s temperature increases as the back radiation from the GP increases. If the GP were “blocking” the BP’s emissions, why didn’t the surrounding glass of the bell jar produce the same temperature increase, thus precluding any additional “blocking” effect from the GP?
Gordo has refused to provide a description of his hypothetical “blocking” mechanism, based on accepted physics. As a result, all he has is an unproven assertion. Even 150 years ago, Clausius knew that the thermal radiation moved in both directions between bodies, yet, Gordo still hasn’t figured that out.
You wrote-
“If the GP were “blocking” the BPs emissions, why didnt the surrounding glass of the bell jar produce the same temperature increase, thus precluding any additional “blocking” effect from the GP?”
You are aware that glass is transparent to some wavelengths of light, arent you? If an object is transparent to a wavelength, that wavelength will pass without attenuation. Other wavelengths may be absorbed, resulting in lesser or greater temperature increases. John Tyndall’s equipment could reliably indicate temperature variations of on hundred thousandths of a degree. How accurate are your measurements? He was aware of the abso*ption of apparently transparent objects, and used rock salt plates to allow longer wave IR radiation to pass more or less unfettered.
How much IR do your “plates” reflect? You wouldn’t have been silly enough to use something like highly reflective aluminium, would you?
Your sloppy “experiment” is wishful thinking. You have rediscovered reflective insulation, and are amazed – due to your lack of knowledge. If you claim otherwise, try making something hotter using the radiation from something colder – and only that. No cunning internal or external heat sources, at a higher temperature than your coldest objects.
Can’t do it, can you? That’s because you are a SkyDragon fantasist, living in denial of reality.
Carry on trying to show that the Earth has become hotter since its creation.
Idiot.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Flynnson, common glass typically exhibits low transmission in the thermal IR ranges. The emissivity of both plates was about 94%, thus the reflectivity could be no more than 6%. Of course, the BP is heated by an external source, just as the Earth is heated by energy from the Sun.
The point is that radiation heat shields work, even though they may have high emissivity. Reflective insulation is a proven approach to insulating satellites.
ES,
You wrote-
If the GP were blocking the BPs emissions, why didnt the surrounding glass of the bell jar produce the same temperature increase, thus precluding any additional blocking effect from the GP?
You are aware that glass is transparent to some wavelengths of light, arent you? If an object is transparent to a wavelength, that wavelength will pass without attenuation. Other wavelengths may be absorbed, resulting in lesser or greater temperature increases. John Tyndalls equipment could reliably indicate temperature variations of on hundred thousandths of a degree. How accurate are your measurements? He was aware of the abso*ption of apparently transparent objects, and used rock salt plates to allow longer wave IR radiation to pass more or less unfettered.
How much IR do your plates reflect? You wouldnt have been silly enough to use something like highly reflective aluminium, would you?
Your sloppy experiment is wishful thinking. You have rediscovered reflective insulation, and are amazed due to your lack of knowledge. If you claim otherwise, try making something hotter using the radiation from something colder and only that. No cunning internal or external heat sources, at a higher temperature than your coldest objects.
Cant do it, can you? Thats because you are a SkyDragon fantasist, living in denial of reality.
Carry on trying to show that the Earth has become hotter since its creation.
Idiot.
Pretending you measured either the emissivity of the reflectivity of your “plates” just shows your delusional ability to lie with a straight face. Go on, document your “measurements”. Oh, you “worked it out”, did you?
TL,DR, Mike.
swannie…”If the GP were blocking the BPs emissions, why didnt the surrounding glass of the bell jar produce the same temperature increase, thus precluding any additional blocking effect from the GP?”
***
Because you used metal for the GP. EM/IR cannot pass through metal. Heard of a Faraday shield? It’s made of metal and used to shield against EM.
Old Gordo struggles to answer my question, providing another example of his delusional physics. Sure, a Faraday Cage made of wire mesh shields one from RF EMI, but where is his evidence that it would also work for Thermal IR EM radiation for the appropriate temperatures?
Spectroscopic evidence proves that glass exhibits strong absorp_tion and emission characteristics, which is similar to that of my plates, which BTW, are painted. The aluminum below that surface coating would be a reflector if polished, but the thin coating of paint determines the emissivity, not the metal.
Apparently, some idiot wrote –
“How does the receiving body know whether incident photons came from a warmer or cooler body than itself?”
Typical gotcha from a brainless SkyDragon cultist, who refuses to accept reality. He doesn’t want to accept the fact that that his fantasies are not supported by fact.
Richard Feynman said – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You haven’t even got a theory, have you? Just another SkyDragon cultist trying to turn fiction into fact.
Off you go – try and raise the temperature of water, using the photons emitted by ice. Describe your experimental setup, document your results, and then spend the rest of your life whining that Nature thwarted your brilliance due to jealousy!
Some people just refuse to accept reality.
Stop ranting.
Just try to answer a perfectly legitimate question.
Otherwise nick off and go and join ol’ c.tt.n socks.
s,
Feel free to be an idiot. Here’s a perfectly valid question for you – how does water know that ice is colder?
Jeez, you really are delusional aren’t you?
Maybe you could use the awesome power of your incredible intellect (only joking) to convince other SkyDragon nitwits that the Earth has actually heated up over the past four and a half billion years or so, what with the GHE, GHGs, four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight, and the concentrated fantasies of donkeys like you.
Nope. Reality doesn’t seem to agree with you, does it?
Carry on trying to turn fantasy into fact. All you will get is laughter.
Bindidon says:
January 7, 2023 at 3:51 PM
No, ice cubes cant boil water,
–
Interesting.
–
Boiling water is just an ice cube with extra energy.
–
If,
If we were to take a glass room with hollow walls in space
With a saucepan of hot water just below boiling point on an active stove
That cannot get any hotter
In thermal equilibrium
Despite 0 K outside
Pour a couple of 100 tons of ice blocks into the hollow walls.
Voila.
Ice emits enough IR to the room to boil the water
–
Is there a logic flaw?
Even braindead cult idiots could boil water using a saucepan and an active stove.
Well, maybe….
a,
You asked if there was a logic flaw.
Yes, you think you are clever. Bad mistake.
You are as stupid as Tim Folkerts – claiming you can boil water using the radiation from ice. All you need is a heat source above 100 C, with infinite energy output, of course.
Your mental maunderings are not experiments. Try warming even the smallest amount of water using ice. Concentrate the 273 K energy with mirrors, lenses – anything you like. Use the finest IR lenses money can buy.
You still can’t turn fantasy into fact, can you? That’s because you are a delusional SkDragon cultist, who refuses to believe that the Earth cooled in spite of four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight, GHGs, GHE, and the furious chanting of other reality denying cultists!
Go on, try and shoot me down in flames, while I keep laughing at you.
Facts would help, but you don’t accept facts, do you?
“Concentrate the 273 K energy with mirrors, lenses anything you like. Use the finest IR lenses money can buy.”
That shows your fundamental misunderstanding. You *cannot* concentrate thermal radiation to be any more concentrated than the source. If 315 W/m^2 leaves the surface of the ice, then no mirrors or lenses will ever give you move than 315 W/m^2. And you will never boil water with that ice radiation.
As a simple visual analogy, imagine a room where the walls, floor, and ceiling are entirely covered with fluorescent bulbs — a uniform glow coming from everywhere. How would you possibly use a mirror to concentrate that light? You could place a mirror so that it reflects light from its shiny front to a surface but you are necessarily blocking an equal amount of light by the back of the mirror.
“…Tim Folkerts claiming you can boil water using the radiation from ice.”
You just lied, Swenson. Tim has never said that.
Re the moon rotating,
Proud to be included in the list of first mentions with my hero ,Willard.
I provided the right answer to end the controversy a while back.
–
For those who missed out.
–
Bindidon mentioned frames of reference earlier.
The moon rotating is a pure frame of reference problem.
Therefore every one who says it rotates is right.
Everyone who says it does not rotate is right.
– if you stand on it it either i it is stationary with respect to any other observer point you choose or rotating around that observer point.
–
Like that question of whether the dress is blue or black it is the observer who is right and different observers are legally entitled to see different things.
–
So argue on to eternity, Godot.
As Bindidon agrees, the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
Thanks, Doc.
A word of advice. Make sure you distinguish the Moon as a real object and the moon as a name for a circle that composes a silly GIF.
One is ruled by physics. The other is ruled by a geometry that Gentle Graham keeps butchering.
Ta.
Whacky Wee Willy,
The Moon is falling towards the Earth – continuously.
Newton’s First Law – “A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.”
You are obviously too lacking in knowledge to appreciate that Newton’s First Law explains the motion of the Moon as observed.
A donkey like you just continues to deny reality – claiming that something that you can’t describe, quantify, or demonstrate, has developed magical planet heating powers after cooling said planet for four and a half billion years or so.
As bizarre quasi-religious cults go, the cult of the SkyDragon is right up there, promising doom, destruction, and despair to non-believers. I’m obviously a non believer – will the SkDragon strike me dead with a lightning bolt, of just fry, toast, boil or roast me with his fiery CO2 breath?
You really are a gullible SkyDragon cultist, aren’t you? Keep the laughs coming.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Silly Willy,
Don’t blame me for your lack of comprehension.
See if you can borrow the cost of a phone call, and ring someone who cares.
Idiot.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Silly Willy,
Dont blame me for your lack of comprehension.
See if you can borrow the cost of a phone call, and ring someone who cares.
Idiot.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Silly Willy,
Dont blame me for your lack of comprehension.
See if you can borrow the cost of a phone call, and ring someone who cares.
Idiot.
Copy-paste your comment once more, Mike.
Little Willy turns up to do his usual thing. That usual thing won’t be arguing with Bindidon about reference frames, of course.
Gentle Graham gently gaslights a little more.
Witless Wee Willy continues talking in tongues.
Might as well, trying to get a SkyDragon to describe their deified GHE just results in a veritable fountain of gibberish. Whacky Wee Willy resolutely ignores reality, turns his face to the wall, and talks to his hand.
Very persuasive, is Wee Willy. His hand no longer smacks Wee Willy in the face when Wee Willy talks nonsense.
If Willy can just keep his hand from continuously diving into his trousers trying to avoid the outpourings from Willy’s mouth, well . . .
At least when Wee Willy claims he doesn’t understand something, he’s not lying.
What an idiot he is!
What are you braying about, Mike?
Witless Wee Willy continues talking in tongues.
Might as well, trying to get a SkyDragon to describe their deified GHE just results in a veritable fountain of gibberish. Whacky Wee Willy resolutely ignores reality, turns his face to the wall, and talks to his hand.
Very persuasive, is Wee Willy. His hand no longer smacks Wee Willy in the face when Wee Willy talks nonsense.
If Willy can just keep his hand from continuously diving into his trousers trying to avoid the outpourings from Willys mouth, well . . .
At least when Wee Willy claims he doesnt understand something, hes not lying.
What an idiot he is!
What are you braying about, Mike?
The trick in awareness is to remove the observer from the picture. When you look at something through a veil of conditioning, you cannot help but taint what is observed with the conditioning.
Reference frames are the product of a conditioned mind and they serve no purpose when ‘observing’ reality. Reference frames serve only as a tool to bring some clarity to complex situations, normally here relative motion is involved.
Applying reference frames to the Moon problem serves only to complicate the matter out of hand. This is nothing more than a simple problem that becomes obvious when viewed using basic physics.
If you want to be anal and seriously stupid, you can argue that a car driving at 30 kph on a road is actually moving at that speed plus the speed of the Earth in its orbit. We don’t need to bring the speed of the Earth into it, however, since we live on an inertial frame of reference and we are not comparing local motion to the universe.
We can observe the Moon from our frame of reference and work out this problem just fine for the simple reason that the Moon is moving within the same reference frame. It’s moving around the centre of the Earth, to keep it simple.
Based on that observation, we know it keeps the same side pointed to Earth. That’s all you need to know, the rest is obvious. If you stand in the middle a circular track and observe a car running around the track, all you see is one side of the car. That’s all the information you need, the car is obviously not rotating about its COG therefore it is moving with curvilinear motion without local rotation.
C’mon, Bordon.
A frame of reference helps measure stuff. It also helps identify direction, without which distinguishing translation from rotation can become risky. Good luck measuring velocity without any of this.
While absolute rotation is a thing, knowing whether you’re in an inertial frame or not can help you determine if you see something that rotates or if you’re not the one doing the rotating.
Are you sure you ever studied any of this?
Willy,
You wrote –
“Good luck measuring velocity without any of this.”
Your attempted sarcastic zinger is more of a wet squib.
The speed of light has been measured. It is identical in any frame of reference – that is, it is independent of any frame of reference. Here’s a snippet which you could have found for yourself, if you were less stupid (or incompetent) –
“The key premise to special relativity is that the speed of light (called c = 186,000 miles per sec) is constant in all frames of reference, regardless of their motion.”
Now is your opportunity to claim that “A frame of reference helps measure stuff” is other than you trying to appear clever by being vague. Or you can pretend that reality doesn’t apply to idiot SkyDragon cultists like you.
Have you managed to find a description of the greenhouse effect yet?
You can run, but you can’t hide, donkey!
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Boasting about your lack of comprehension is a characteristic of SkyDragon cultists. What is it you don’t understand?
Only joking, of course. You don’t need to answer. I understand perfectly.
What are you braying about, Mike, and which part of “absolute” you do not get?
” As Bindidon agrees, the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. ”
This is not exactly what I mean.
What I mean wrt lunar rotation and reference frames is that Moon’s rotation is independent of reference frames.
It rotates anyway, regardless from where you observe it.
It is typical manipulation of the lunar spin deniers to suggest that Moon’s rotation may well depend on the frame of reference chosen to observe it.
The impression that the Moon is not rotating as seen from Earth is just as much an optical illusion as the three optical librations we can observe.
Bin, you’re spinning on your axis: “It rotates anyway, regardless from where you observe it.”
Wrong. Moon is not rotating as seen from Earth. We always see the same side of it. It is NOT an optical illusion. It is the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string — the same side always faces the inside of its orbit. You must “spin” reality to match your cult beliefs.
Your ancient astrologers got it wrong, and you don’t understand enough science to know any difference. And, you can’t learn.
” Your ancient astrologers got it wrong … ”
Yeah. Especially Newton!
Wrong again Bin.
Newton didn’t get it wrong. You are taking his translated words out of context and putting your interpretation on them. That ain’t science.
You don’t have a model of OMWAR. You can’t answer the simple question about your cult’s imaginary lunar spin axis:
What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
You’ve got NOTHING.
Pup,
Here is the model:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4709
Do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Clint R writes:
” You are taking his translated words out of context and putting your interpretation on them. ”
Out of context? Which context? Can you name it exactly?
*
Sources for Principia Scientifica, Book III, Prop. XVII, Th. XV
1. Newton’s original text in Latin
https://books.google.com/books?id=2wNYAAAAcAAJ&hl=de&pg=PA51&q=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
2. Motte’s translation in English
https://books.google.com/books?id=6EqxPav3vIsC&pg=PA238&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
3. Du Chatelet’s translation in French
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k290387/f39.item
4. Wolfers’ translation in German (on page 399, i.e. 414 in the pdf file, §21 Lehrsatz)
https://ia902704.us.archive.org/24/items/mathematischepr00newtgoog/mathematischepr00newtgoog.pdf
*
All four texts show the same:
” Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h 39′; Venus in about 23h; the Earth in 23h 56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the Moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. ”
*
You, Clint R, together with Robertson and the Pseudomod are the ones who put an own interpretation on Newton’s words, by claiming for example that with ‘revolves’, Newton in reality meant ‘orbits’, what makes no sense.
Jupiter orbits the Sun in 11.86 Earth years, Mars in 687 Earth days, Venus in 225 Earth days.
About what, do you think, does the Sun orbit in 25 1/2 days? About the Milky Way?
*
And when you three can finally no longer can claim this nonsense, you suddenly switch to the other nonsense that in contrast to Jupiter, Mars, Venus, the Earth and the Sun, which always rotate, the Moon only rotates ‘in relation to the fixed stars’, but by some magic not otherwise.
*
One thing is for sure, Clint R. You three will never stop denying.
*
What now concerns your question
” What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moons orbit? ”
I only can tell you that it makes no sense.
How could a celestial body change its polar axis so dramatically while orbiting?
Earth spin axis inclination for example needs over 20,000 years to move from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Obliquity_of_the_ecliptic_laskar.PNG
This means that per orbit, the inclination is changed by 0.00012 degree.
*
What you don’t understand is that the inclination of Moon’s polar axis wrt the Ecliptic is computed using selenocentric coordinates, and hence is independent of Moon’s orbit.
**
You always tell: ‘You have NOTHING’.
What do you have, Clint R, except your endless ‘braindead cult idiot’ insult?
"the Moon only rotates ‘in relation to the fixed stars’."
Correction: the moon only appears to rotate on its own axis "in relation to the fixed stars".
As we agree, Bindidon, "What I mean wrt lunar rotation and reference frames is that moon’s [lack of] rotation is independent of reference frames."
Although your position is that same sentence without the "[lack of]". That’s the only difference.
The Moon only appears to spin.
Gentle Graham is a genius.
Thank you, Little Willy, but I can’t take credit for referring to "the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation". I stand on the shoulders of giants.
A ball on a string only appears to spin.
Gentle Graham is geniuser and geniuser.
Exactly! A ball on a string appears to rotate on its own internal axis, but in fact it is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball itself.
As Bindidon agrees, a ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
And so Gentle Graham repeats the blunder of his favorite guru.
He will gaslight instead of acknowledging the blunder.
Readers might notice the appeal to authority too!
It’s not a blunder, Little Willy. Visualize the moon’s motion, from above and outside of the orbit (same POV as the animation you linked to at 11:29 AM). It appears as though it’s rotating on its own axis. Of course it does! That’s the number one reason why everybody, for so long, has thought that the moon rotates on its own axis…because it looks like it is.
However, appearances can be deceptive…
What you always miss Bin, is “…with respect to the fixed stars.” A ball-on-a-string appears to rotate with respect to the fixed stars. But, that is NOT axial rotation. The ball is NOT actually rotating, and Moon is NOT actually rotating.
And you seem to understand Earth’s axis movement, but you can’t understand Moon’s imaginary axis movement. That’s quite revealing, huh?
Anyway, I enjoyed you long rambling rant. That’s why this is so much fun.
Pup,
Pray tell Roy’s readers –
Do you see the Moon spinning?
Alternatively, you can always report the results of you doing the Pole Dance Experiment.
Bin, since you now admit Earth’s axis doesn’t move much: “Earth spin axis inclination for example needs over 20,000 years to move from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees”. Maybe you’re ready to answer the easy question:
What is the change in angle of the imaginary spin axis, based on the angles given by your cult, between the high and low points of Moon’s orbit?
And, I’ll even give you a hint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
I bet you can’t get the right answer. Prove me wrong.
Hey, Pup –
Do you see the Moon spinning?
Alternatively, you can always report the results of you doing the Poll Dance Experiment.
"It is typical manipulation of the lunar spin deniers to suggest that Moon’s rotation may well depend on the frame of reference chosen to observe it."
Well, that’s what angech is saying. You and I disagree with angech.
Obviously that is where Bindidon and I disagree. However, if you changed it to this:
"It doesn’t rotate anyway, regardless from where you observe it".
The principle remains the same.
I would have thought that all went without saying, but here we are…
Obviously Gentle Graham misinterprets the *kind* of claim Binny makes.
Can he resist gaslighting just for one day?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Pseudomod
Recently, in a comment on this blog, Vournas suddenly claimed that the moon (like all moons in the solar system) does not rotate around its polar axis – and this after years of writing the exact opposite on several blogs, including his own one!
Maybe you were naive enough to believe him?
Look at his blog
https://cristos-vournas.com/
You see there
” Earth is on average warmer than Moon not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin. ” [He means of course 29.53]
*
Anyway, I collected all necessary information out of his blog and put all that into a table you can see in this pdf file:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N4v5M7td7NuT3xsXm9W2KMgm1BXQqegT/view
Have some fun in denying all that too!
I don’t mind at all if Cristos thinks the moon rotates on its own axis, or not. That’s entirely up to him.
That is not the point.
The point is: do you deny all the data carefully collected by Vournas?
And if well: on the base of which scientific results?
Bin, CV was talking about Moon’s day/night. That’s relative to the Sun. He cleared it up later.
You’re sooooo desperate.
Nice find, Binny!
Nice answer, Clint.
” CV was talking about Moons day/night. ”
Really? About all moons’ day/night?
Read the table again, Clint R:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N4v5M7td7NuT3xsXm9W2KMgm1BXQqegT/view
and have a look at all moons, not only at ours.
*
The result of Vournas’ computation for planets’ and moons’ rotational behaviors you see here:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/____impro/1/onewebmedia/i285978589402997373.jpg?etag=%221b68c-5db44839af051%22&sourceContentType=&ignoreAspectRatio&resize=670%2B472&extract=25%2B0%2B629%2B472
Maybe you understand what happens to his computations – and hence to the chart above – when all moons in the solar system, form our Luna till Charon, suddenly stop rotating :–)
*
No, Clint R: I’m not desperate at all.
Bin, something that is not rotating does not have a “rotation rate”.
You’re still confusing motions.
Look at the simple ball-on-a-string. It’s easy to understand. One side always faces the inside of its orbit, just like Moon. We know it is not rotating because the string is not wrapping around it.
Easy peasy.
Do you see the ball spinning, Pup?
Asking for a gentle friend.
Clint has already pre-answered your question, Little Willy:
“A ball-on-a-string appears to rotate [on its own axis]…”
Yes, exactly.
Perhaps Gentle Graham forgot to ask Pup how he sees the fixed stars when he swirls the ball on string…
🙄
🤦
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint R
Don’t forget to tell Vournas that his Planetary Rotational Warming Phenomenon needs an overhaul to disregard all lunar rotations in the solar system…
Another classy refusal on both sides to accept reference frames other than their own.
Get over it.
The argument is dead.
The moon rotates in one reference frame.
It does not rotate in another reference frame.
Both the reference frames that it rotates in and the reference frames it does not rotate on are real.
Instead of calling each other names just accept the science that sometimes both sides can be right and that staying in your own echo chamber is the only way to avoid inconvenient truths.
A thanks to Bindidon for pointing out the problems of rotation for Christos again, better than I did.
Perhaps he might listen this time
Willard uses frames of reference all the time
Willard says: it rotates anyway
but, qualification
January 8, 2023 with respect to the fixed stars
meaning?
It does not rotate in other frames of reference
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team also
January 8, 2023 at 7:05 PM
A ball-on-a-string appears to rotate [on its own axis]
Clint R says:
January 8, 2023 at 4:41 PM
Look at the simple ball-on-a-string.
Bindidon says: denies frames of reference exist other than that the moon is at the centre of the universe
January 8, 2023 at 7:18 AM
What I mean wrt lunar rotation and reference frames is that Moons rotation is independent of reference frames.
It rotates anyway, regardless from where you observe it.
Sorry all, it is a frame of reference problem.
Simple and complete.
It is not a “frame of reference” problem it is a “what’s your version of OMWAR?” problem.
ang, you are confused about “rotation about a center of mass”. If the ball were rotating, the string would wrap around it. The ball is ONLY orbiting, NOT rotating.
Pup, Pup,
You are supposed to tell Gentle Graham how you *see* the fixed stars while you swirl around the ball on a string.
Little Willy is confused again.
Gentle Graham gaslights a little more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Weather in Beijing China:
High 52 Low 24
Me: lancaster ca:
High 52 Low 39
Tomorrow, Beijing:
High 42 Low 20
and then:
41 and 21 , 43 and 30,
and 41 and 30 and it rains and snows
I am not getting any snow, yet. But I get some lightening.
Kyiv city, Ukraine:
26 and 18 and tomorrow it snows:
30 and 22
Anyways Beijing gets wide temperature extremes, and it’s
not a desert {as far as I know].
gb…what would make you want to relocate from a rain forest climate in Canada to a desert climate in California?
At least you won’t fall prey to the adage of no being able to see the forest for the trees. Maybe they’ll claim you can’t see the desert for the sand.
No sand where I live. Just a desert. And desert which if water is added, grows a lot crops. So, water conservative is considered fairly important. It’s going to rain on monday and tuesday but it’s raining more in northern California, so they might say we ended the drought,
Mars gravity:
” 3.70703 m/s (0.378 g) on the equator
3.73493 m/s (0.381 g) on the poles. ”
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/34856/how-does-the-surface-gravity-on-mars-vary-between-the-equator-and-its-poles
I was thinking lunar space elevators.
Not fan of Earth space elevators, but Moon is different.
What about space elevator for Mars?
With the latest ONI out, this third La Nina will be officially classified as weak. (Just)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/01/oni.jpeg
Not sure what you’re trying to show me there. The determination of the strength of ENSO events is not based on a 12-month running average. You are showing length not strength.
The ‘strength’ is a vertical on that graph.
No – that is the AVERAGE strength. And your average doesn’t break the -1.0 threshold. There has to be three consecutive months which reach that threshold to qualify as moderate. The last 12 months includes the previous La Nina. The last 6 months were -0.9, -0.8, -0.9, -1.0, -1.0, -0.9. You are capturing CONSISTENCY compared to other negative ENSO events, not strength.
In any case, doesn’t a weak La Nina fit better with your agenda? You can claim “… and this is what we got from a weak La Nina – imagine if it wasn’t weak …”
Compare it to previous ‘peaks’.
Yet again, this ridiculous manipulation of an alleged ‘S-G projection’ !
There is NO projection anywhere in your chart, Linsley Hood.
What you show is NOTHING else than the end of the data generated by the Savitzky-Golay filter (whose begin you manifestly omitted because it would have put the alleged ‘projection’ in question, wouldn’t it).
As we all know, your ‘low passes’ are running means which can’t show any data in their evaluation windows, what is true for CTRMs as well.
But Savitzky-Golay is a filter based on an iterative ordinary least squares processing, and hence shows data from begin till end of the processed series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aPHcf_yPER_e6wAje3cC0_ji7oSwwDOt/view
You should stop stubbornly manipulating the blog with your ridiculous claims, and start reading Savitzky’s and Golay’s original paper they wrote in 1964 if I well remember.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter
“There is NO projection anywhere in your chart”
So you expect the line to stay the same in an S-G, no matter what new data is added after today? You would be very wrong on that account. If the new data is high the S-G line will rise also, if the data is low the S-G line will fall. The S-G I show will follow what the High Quality Low Pass filter I also use will show after the new half of the data period has elapsed in the future. Yours will continue to show the leakage that a single pass S-G does, along with exactly the same outcome in the long term.
About time you worked out what an S-G shows.
Read how Savitzky-Golay works: they evaluate data from begin till end.
Thus, when you extend your CTRMs with an alleged ‘S-G prediction’, you not only manipulate the readers, but ridicule yourself.
Final point, Blindsley Hood!
“Thus, when you extend your CTRMs with an alleged ‘S-G prediction'”
added is high or low?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter#/media/File:Lissage_sg3_anim.gif
I deliberately compared the CTRMs with a multi-pass S-G in order to get the best solution I could find. You on the other hand wish to let way too much high frequency through in order to do your plots.
“Read how Savitzky-Golay works:”
I know how it works. It is not precisely accurate at the ends.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/projection
” a calculation or guess about the future based on information that you have “
“A projection is a statistic indicating what a value would be if the assumptions about future trends hold true”
A wise man either uses it to indicate what the center value of the likely range is when new data is added (as I used to do) or a range of possible values if the new data is high or low.
For the ‘No Warming’ ideologues in the northern US:
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/27e1da91-4306-4521-a746-774557a479aa/ed928f2ae79af524bd89b99537e27f8b/ac5ac3f3-2e3e-47fd-bb0a-40ef17e103c9.jpg
https://images.ctfassets.net/4ivszygz9914/99a0004d-74d9-4046-8e94-affceba22cc3/e9bdb7d12c288a39283fe9595d5786db/fbff9255-bf79-46c6-b1d8-2272b50ee9cc.jpg
Almost all ski areas in the European Alps, which are at an altitude of around 1,000 – 1,500 meters, are missing around half a meter of snow. Above 3,000 meters, the lack of snow is much higher, up to 8 meters.
In Gstaad, Switzerland (the jetsetiest of them all) they bring the ‘white gold’ to the downhill slopes with… helicopters. The others use snow cannons.
*
But since a while, Norway got huge amounts of snow, so I guess the jetset will prefer more snow, and the amount of private jet flights to Karmøy, Sørstokken etc will increase by a lot.
*
We had in North Germoney about 0.5 cm of snow in one day at the end of November and that’s it for now.
Temperature these days: +10 C, +5/+6 C at night.
*
Be careful! Grrrand Coooling Aheaddd!
Maybe this helps a bit:
1987 1 14 -25.3 (C)
1963 1 20 -23.2
1963 1 31 -22.6
1987 1 11 -22.3
1997 1 2 -21.8
1987 1 13 -21.2
2009 1 7 -20.9
1985 1 7 -20.7
1963 1 30 -20.6
1971 1 4 -20.6
2009 1 6 -20.5
1963 1 19 -20.2
1970 1 19 -20.1
1979 1 1 -20.0
1997 1 1 -19.4
1963 1 13 -19.3
1963 1 11 -19.2
2010 1 27 -19.2
1971 1 3 -19.1
1979 1 7 -19.1
These are the 20 lowest temperatures recorded in January at the nearest weather station since… 1960.
They’ll just go to America instead.
“While ski areas in the West close due to too much snow, European resorts shutter with not enough”
https://www.skimag.com/news/it-was-a-busy-holiday-news-cycle-in-the-mountains-what-you-missed/
Ja Her Bindiclown, global warming has just reached catastrophic level of Zero Point Zero
jajaja
https://youtu.be/2V3CfD8TPac
#5
I was sure that whenever the little ankle-biting dachshund sees a tree, it would think, Oh! Time to get rid of a little pile.
Your replies to my comments get each time dumber and dumber, Zharkovanina!
In two days, another stratospheric intrusion from the north along with a rain front will reach northern California.
https://i.ibb.co/z8KP608/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f048.png
Last night was a beautiful full moon, with very clear skies. Sky temperature directly overhead was -56.5°F. Ground temperature was 31.1°F.
The cult idiots believe the sky is heating the ground! That’s why this is so much fun.
Sky = -56.5°F = -49.2°C = 224K
Ground = 31.1°F = -0.5°C = 273K
Remind me.
Why is the sky colder than the ground?
If the ground is transferring heat to the sky why is the sky cold?
If heat is leaving the sky, where does it go, and by what mechanism?
2LOT, nincompoop.
I want to hear ClintRs version of the physics, if he has one.
Okay Ent, I’ll remind you.
This has all been discussed many times, but you can’t understand it. You’re braindead. You actually believe you can twist reality to fit your false beliefs. You believe passenger jets fly backwards!
You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
Consider yourself reminded.
And the temperature in outer space is?
Doesn’t really have a temperature. Though some will say around 3 K.
Is that higher or lower than
“Sky = -56.5F = -49.2C = 224K”
"Doesn’t really have a temperature" is not higher or lower than 224 K.