Home/BlogIn Part I I showed the Landsat satellite-based measurements of urbanization around the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) land temperature-monitoring stations. Virtually all of the GHCN stations have experienced growth in the coverage of human settlement “built-up” (BU) structures.
As an example of this growth, here is the 40-year change in BU values (which range from 0 to 100%) at 1 km spatial resolution over the Southeast United States.
How has this change in urbanization been expressed at the GHCN stations distributed around the world? Fig. 2 shows how urbanization has increased on average across 19,885 GHCN stations from 20N to 82.5N latitude, at various spatial averaging resolutions of the data.
NONE of the 19,885 GHCN stations experienced negative growth, which is not that surprising since that would require a removal of human settlement structures over time. In all of the analysis that follows, I will be using the 21×21 km averages of BU centered on the GHCN station locations.
So, what effect does urbanization measured in this manner have on GHCN temperatures? And, especially, on temperature trends used for monitoring global warming?
While we all know that urban areas are warmer than rural areas, especially at night and during the summer, does an increase in urbanization lead to spurious warming at the GHCN stations that experienced growth (which is the majority of them)?
And, even if it did, does the homogenization procedure NOAA uses to correct for spurious temperature effects remove (even partially) urban heat island (UHI) effects on reported temperature trends?
John Christy and I have been examining these questions by comparing the GHCN temperature dataset (both unadjusted and adjusted [homogenized] versions) to these Landsat-based measurements of human settlement structures, which I will just call “urbanization”.
Here’s what I’m finding so far.
The Strongest UHI Warming with Urbanization Growth Occurs at Nearly-Rural Stations
As Oke (1973) and others have demonstrated, the urban heat island effect is strongly nonlinear, with (for example) a 2% increase in urbanization at rural sites producing much more warming than a 2% increase at an urban site. This means that a climate monitoring dataset using mostly-rural stations is not immune from spurious warming from creeping urbanization, unless there has been absolutely zero growth.
For example, Fig. 3 shows the sensitivity of GHCN (absolute) temperatures to increasing urbanization in various classes of urbanization, based upon well over 1 million station pairs separated by less than 150 km.
By far the greatest sensitivity to a change in urbanization in Fig. 3 is in the 0-2% (nearly rural) category. We also see in Fig. 3 that the homogenization procedure used by NOAA reduces this effect by only 9% averaged across all seasons, and by even less (2.1%) in the summer season.
If we integrate the sensitivities in Fig. 3 from 0 to 100% urbanization, we get the total UHI effect on temperature (Fig. 4).
The temperature data used here is the average of the daily maximum and minimum temperatures ([Tmax+Tmin]/2), and since almost all of the urban heat island effect is in Tmin, the temperature scale in Fig. 4 would be nearly doubled for the Tmin UHI effect.
The black curve in Fig. 4 is a square-root relationship, which seems to match the data reasonable well for most of the GHCN stations (which are generally less than 30% urbanized). But this is not nearly as non-linear as the 4th root relationship Oke (1973) calculated for some eastern Canadian stations, using population data as a measure of urbanization.
But what I have shown so far is based upon spatial information (the difference between closely-spaced stations). It does not tell us whether, or by how much, spurious warming exists in the GHCN temperature trends. To examine this question, next I looked at how the NOAA homogenization procedure changed station trends as a function of how fast the station environment has become more urbanized.
NOAA’s homogenization produces a change in most of the station temperature trends. If I compute the average homogenization-induced change in trends in various categories of station growth in urbanization, we should see a negative trend adjustment associated with positive urbanization growth, right?
But just the opposite happens.
First let’s examine what happens at stations with no growth in urbanization. In Fig. 5 we see that the 881 stations with no trend in urbanization during 1975-2014 have an average 0.011 C/decade warmer trend in the adjusted (homogenized) data than in the unadjusted data. This, by itself, is entirely possible since there are time-of-observation (“Tobs”) adjustments made to the data, adjustments for station moves, instrumentation types, etc.
So, let’s assume that value at zero growth in Fig. 5 represents what we should expect for the NON-urbanization related adjustments to GHCN trends. As we move to the right from zero urbanization growth in Fig. 5, stations with increasing growth in urbanization should have downward adjustments in their temperature trends, but instead we see, for all classes of growth in urbanization, UPWARD adjustments instead!
Thus, it appears that NOAA’s homogenization procedure is spuriously warming station temperature trends (on average) when it should be cooling them. I don’t know how to conclude any different.
Why are the NOAA adjusments going in the wrong direction? I don’t know.
To say the least, I find these results… curious.
OK, so how big is this spurious warming effect on land temperature trends in the GHCN dataset?
Before you jump to the conclusion that GHCN temperature trends have too much spurious warming to be relied upon for monitoring global warming, what I have shown does not tell us by just how much the land-average temperature trends are biased upward. I will address that in Part III.
My very preliminary calculations so far (using the UHI curves in Fig. 4 applied to the 21×21 km urbanization growth curve in Fig. 2) suggest the UHI warming averaged over all stations is about 10-20% of the GHCN trends. Small, but not insignificant. But that could change as I dig deeper into the issue.
Why not include urban heat island effects as a legitimate form of land use induced global warming?
The only real reason to isolate UHI from other factors so that you can account for all factors independantly.
Well, of course in a sense it is. Lots of people research UHI as a form of anthropogenic climate change. But it’s local, not global, and needs to be removed for comparison to climate models which don’t even have urban land types in them AFAIK, and even if a few do, I doubt they include growth over time, and even of they do THAT they don’t produce a temperature product at only GHCN locations. I need to compute the increase in urbanization of all global land for comparison.
I like that seasonal difference. Longer shadows and lighter sides?
May be of interest:
https://notrickszone.com/2023/02/13/in-2003-the-globe-was-0-34-urban-by-2035-0-96-will-be-global-warming-is-significantly-urban-induced/
There are at least two reasons why the Urban Heat Island effects should be considered separate from what the mainstream calls climate change.
First, the solutions are far different. Reducing CO2 emissions is the holy grail of solving climate change. Even if that action has a perceptible influence on the temperature part of climate change, it will not affect temperature increase due to UHI.
Second, there is deep concern about how climate change is affecting weather. Weather is not determined on the surface but rather higher in the troposphere, etc.
In Sydney Australia we have two weather stations. One at Sydney Observatory Hill and one at Belrose (where they also have a radar to generate rain maps).
Every day on local ABC Tv the weather map for Sydney shows the maximum temp at Belrose at 2deg C below the Sydney site.
The two sites are 17k (just over 10 miles) apart. The Belrose site is in bushland; the Sydney site is just south of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Urban heating of 2 deg exceeds the 1.4 climate change increase claimed by the Aust. BOM since 1910.
A great observation Peter,
It would be interesting to view the results from Sydney Airport.
The Sydney airport site is immediately west of the runway just where jumbo aircraft are at full throttle. Five metres north is the freeway that runs under the runway. It is where heavy vehicles are accelerating uphill.
In the UK the recent summers peaks were at airports. The BOM in the UK turns a blind eye to the heating effect of a jumbo jet burning 50 tons of fuel. The same applies to the Australian BOM. A large percentage of airports met stations underpin global warming.
Airports have an imporant task in keeping accurate details of air temp as pilots need to know air temp to calculate fuel load.
This highlights the fact that you need to look at a myriad of lines of evidence when assessing the extent of warming and its consequences. Earth Energy Imbalance, Ocean Heat Content, Sea level rise, etc.
Consensus is reached when the different lines of evidence point to the same result.
IMHO.
Science isn’t about consensus.
The Climateball Bingo includes “But Consensus”:
https://climateball.net/but-consensus/
It also includes “But Science”:
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-science#consensus
I added the shortcut for you, Troglodyte.
Tweedledee and tweedledum.
sph,
Or Dumb and Dumber.
He’s not the sharpest tool in the SkyDragon shed.
They’re from Alice in Wonderland.
Troglodyte and Mike Flynn sat on a wall.
Troglodyte and Mike Flynn had a great fall;
All the Sky dragons and all the Sky cranks.
Couldn’t put Troglodyte and Mike Flynn together again.
Wearisome Wee Willy,
Dont give up your day job. You haven’t a clue have you?
SkyDragons are those witless fools who believe that CO2 and H2O (which have been in the atmosphere for billions of years), have suddenly developed amazing heating powers – like a dragon’s fiery breath! “We’re all doomed!”, they cry. Boiled. Roasted. Fried.
What a pack of fools – represented by SkyDragon cultists like you, who can’t even get a nursery rhyme to scan, let alone rhyme!
Here’s an old piece of rhyme –
“Some say, compar’d to Bononcini
That Mynheer Handel’s but a Ninny
Others aver, that he to Handel
Is scarcely fit to hold a Candle
Strange all this Difference should be
‘Twixt Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee!”
How’s your hunt for a GHE description going, dummy?
How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
Still braying at, what is the name again?
No, you seem to be on a sabbatical.
Enjoying yourself so far?
Wearisome Wee Willy,
Dont give up your day job. You havent a clue have you?
SkyDragons are those witless fools who believe that CO2 and H2O (which have been in the atmosphere for billions of years), have suddenly developed amazing heating powers like a dragons fiery breath! “Were all doomed!. they cry. Boiled. Roasted. Fried.
What a pack of fools represented by SkyDragon cultists like you, who cant even get a nursery rhyme to scan, let alone rhyme!
Heres an old piece of rhyme
“Some say, compar’d to Bononcini
That Mynheer Handel’s but a Ninny
Others aver, that he to Handel
Is scarcely fit to hold a Candle
Strange all this Difference should be
‘Twixt Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee!”
Hows your hunt for a GHE description going, dummy?
How hard can it be?
What are you braying about, Mike?
Enjoy your sabbatical.
Wearisome Wee Willy,
Dont give up your day job. You haven’t a clue have you?
SkyDragons are those witless fools who believe that CO2 and H2O (which have been in the atmosphere for billions of years), have suddenly developed amazing heating powers like a dragons fiery breath! “We’re all doomed!”. they cry. Boiled. Roasted. Fried.
What a pack of fools represented by SkyDragon cultists like you, who cant even get a nursery rhyme to scan, let alone rhyme!
Heres an old piece of rhyme
“Some say, compar’d to Bononcini
That Mynheer Handel’s but a Ninny
Others aver, that he to Handel
Is scarcely fit to hold a Candle
Strange all this Difference should be
Twixt Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee!”
Hows your hunt for a GHE description going, dummy?
How hard can it be?
What are you braying about during your sabbatical, Mike?
Copy-paste your comment.
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
I have a related question that is mostly hypothetical. How much actual heat has been “trapped” by human emissions of CO2? For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the earth actually is 1 deg. C warmer and it is entirely due to the increase in CO2 from 280 ppmv to 420 ppmv. How many hours of sunlight would that represent? I realize heat is stored in the landmass and oceans, and that most of the greenhouse heat remains in the lower atmosphere, but how many hours of sunlight does it take to heat the entire troposphere by 1 deg. C?
I would have to run the numbers… what you are asking is how much energy would it take to warm the oceans and atmosphere by 1 deg. That’s in Joules, so you would have to decide over what period of time. That ends up being an heat flux, which is in Watts per square meter. That can then be compared to the average global solar input of 240 W/m2. I suspect the answer is equivalent to about 1% more absorbed sunlight compared to average.
Thank you for the answer. I knew it was probably a complex question. I understand the difference between energy, and power (energy per time), so the flux is really power per area. Your answer is somewhat in line with my thinking so I might try to play with some numbers. Thanks again.
“I would have to run the numbers…”
You can also calibrate your calculations with the observational satellite data from the CERES Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) product here https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/.
It provides monthly (2000-2022) mean TOA and surface shortwave (SW), longwave (LW) and net radiative fluxes on a 1 1 grid.
Using a very crude method, I came up with 12 hours to heat the entire atmosphere once and permanently by 1 deg. C. In other words, I calculate what length of power duration in time is require to provide an fixed amount of energy. I ignored the effect of the ratio of specific heats and used Cp.
(14.7 lbm/in2)x(0.24 BTU/lbm-F)x(1.8 F/C)x(1550 in2/m2)
x(17.6 W-min/BTU)x(hr/60 min)(m2/240 W) = 12 hr
There may be a more accurate and realistic answer.
For perspective, I understand that there is as much heat capacity in the first 12 feet of depth of the worlds oceans, and that heat storage goes very much lower, but I still think the 12 hour number for the atmosphere provides an interesting data point.
Average day/night temperature change is about 10°C.
That’s close to 1 degree every hour.
Tim S, 4 comments.
1) Wow — US traditional units! I didn’t know any one still used those!
2) I get about 16 hours. But if we chose slightly different values, that could easily account for the difference. Its always good to see my back-of-the-envelop calculations match those of other people.
3) The atmosphere is not the only thing warming. Warming even a little of the ocean would take more energy than warming the atmosphere.
4) The statement “once and permanently” is not accurate. Things don’t permanently stay warm. If my oven will stay @ 200 C with 50% power, I can’t ‘once and permanently’ warm it to 220 C but giving it a bit of extra power for 10 min. An earth that is 1 C warmer would take several extra minutes of sunshine everyday, just to maintain the higher temperature.
Tim F, you should get out more. Most of the USA uses the units of commerce. You still purchase pounds of product and your thermal devices such as furnaces and air conditioners are rated in watts and BTUs. My car tires are still inflated to a psi rating. Anyway, you missed the most important criticism, and that is the spherical shape of the earth. My calculation should only be good for high noon somewhere in the tropics. The exercise was not to be scientifically accurate, but to put some perspective on just how much heat has been “trapped”. The term “once and permanently” implies that heating only needs to happen once if it has been trapped. If you missed the almost sarcastic tone of the exercise, then I apologize. The real point is that the atmosphere and its various thermodynamic processes are dynamic and chaotic, so it is hard to claim that any amount of heat is actually trapped — especially if it only takes 12 hours for it to happen. Finally, yes, I have my actual envelop still in front of me. My method was to just play out a dimensional analysis and see if I could come with a result in hours. That is why my units are kind of mixed up. I am glad to hear that our envelops agree to some extent.
“Anyway, you missed the most important criticism, and that is the spherical shape of the earth. My calculation should only be good for high noon somewhere in the tropics. “
You used a flux of 240 W/m^2. That is the absorbed flux when averaged globally, not absorbed flux at the tropics. High noon in the tropics is about 960 W/m/2 (1370 W/m^2 from the sun, minus 30% for albedo). 960W/m^2 is divided by 4 to give 240 W/m^2 precisely because the earth is a sphere.
I did make one mistake I realize now. I used the ~160 W/m^2 absorbed by the ground, rather than the full ~240 absorbed by ground+air, which incorrectly gave a longer time of 16 hr. I suspect your 12 hr is actually closer.
And yes, I still use traditional units commonly for many measurements. I just rarely see a scientist or engineer use them in a situation like this. But hey, if you are more comfortable with them, go for it.
I do agree with the spirit of your efforts. This is a simple calculation of a complex system. It gives one interesting number, but it won’t tell us much about the actual climate.
Tim Folkerts, thank you for the clarification. I am more of a student and certainly not an expert on climate science. On the other, I am a very experienced and knowledgeable engineer. I fully understand all of the physical and scientific principles involved. Scientists explore why things work, engineers make things work. I was using Dr. Spencer’s number, which I did not fully understand. I have spent time in the tropics, so I have some personal experience with how intense the sunlight is. I was using physical properties and units that I am familiar with. I am very confident in the calculation as defined. I also agree with the statement that the oceans are the key to understanding climate. UAH 6 clearly demonstrates the effect of ENSO on the global average temperature.
Tim S,
I suppose after the Sun sets, the atmosphere refuses to stay hot, and cools down. Oh well.
During this time, the Earth loses a little of its internal heat, as well.
SkyDragon cultist don’t like reality. They seem to claim that the Earth is getting hotter, due to some greenhouse effect that has been around for billions of years!
Doesn’t seem to be terribly likely to me, and none of the SkyDragon cultists seem inclined to describe this “greenhouse effect”.
You might have better luck.
Swenson, you lost your trolling attempt the last time, when I very carefully explained that all fired furnaces require radiant heat transfer, and only the products of combustion, CO2 and water vapor, have sufficient radiant heat transfer to do the job. Nitrogen has almost no effect. This is a real world example that requires no further proof. It turns out that ambient temperatures in the atmosphere work just as well as furnace temperatures, except that the products of combustion in the furnace are at much higher concentration.
Tim S,
Furnaces? About as relevant as SkyDragon “overcoats” and “insulation”!
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and neither you nor anybody can suggest a reason for “global warming” that involves anything that hasn’t been around for billions of years – as the Earth cooled!
All matter above absolute zero emits IR, and cools in the absence of an external energy source. Furnaces are no different. High temperatures are due to lots of high temperature combustion products – burning hydrocarbons, in most cases. You could burn hydrogen in chlorine, and produce no CO2 or H2O at all! Impractical, but possible.
I see you couldn’t find anything to dispute what I wrote, so you diverted into furnaces.
Good for you! A tried and true SkyDragon tactic to avoid facing reality! You still can’t describe the GHE, can you?
Dimwit.
I admit that I do not understand the sub-culture of people who exchange juvenile insults back and forth. I also prefer to spend my time being productive, so that may explain it.
Tim S,
You wrote –
“I admit that I do not understand the sub-culture of people who exchange juvenile insults back and forth. I also prefer to spend my time being productive, so that may explain it.”
You are free to spend your time any way you wish. You also say you do not understand Dr Spencer’s “number”. Do you make any particular efforts to rectify any misunderstandings you may acknowledge, or do you blame others for your ignorance?
You don’t understand why you can’t describe the “greenhouse effect”, either.
I’ll tell you why – it doesn’t exist. Lack of understanding remedied.
You don’t need to thank me – it’s my pleasure.
This is all the evidence you need to demonstrate CO2 doesn’t impact warming. There has been absolutely no warming at the S Pole. It is the ideal location to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures because there is no water vapor or urban heat island effect. Here is the evidence.
https://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Southern%20Polar_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png
Until someone can explain why there is no warming at the S Pole, they can’t explain how CO2 could cause warming elsewhere.
The meteorological fallacy strikes again!
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote “The meteorological fallacy strikes again!”
If appealing to your own unsubstantiated authority is the best you can do, please stop trying to troll.
You’re just not that good at it.
Mike Flynn,
If you are not braying, it does not show.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote The meteorological fallacy strikes again!
If appealing to your own unsubstantiated authority is the best you can do, please stop trying to troll.
Youre just not that good at it.
Mike Flynn,
Looks like you copy-pasted your braying.
Do it again for me.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote “The meteorological fallacy strikes again!”
If appealing to your own unsubstantiated authority is the best you can do, please stop trying to troll.
You’re just not that good at it.
Tweedledum,
Reference your never visited Climate Fall scam. Maybe one day, someone might click.
Climateball, Troglodyte:
https://climateball.net/but-climateball/
Climateball.
You never left High School, did you?
Winsome Wee Willy,
Did you mean Climate Fail instead of Climate Fall? Climate – balls!?
If nobody clicks, what’s the point anyway?
And if somebody accidentally does, once again, what’s the point?
Maybe you should channel your efforts into finding a description of the GHE, explaining where it may be observed, measured, and documented, for starters.
How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
How do you know?
Who died and made you King of Clicks?
Do you speak for your employer?
No, you are on sabbatical.
Enjoy it while it lasts.
Cheers.
Winsome Wee Willy,
Did you mean Climate Fail instead of Climate Fall? Climate balls!?
If nobody clicks, what’s the point anyway?
And if somebody accidentally does, once again, what’s the point?
Maybe you should channel your efforts into finding a description of the GHE, explaining where it may be observed, measured, and documented, for starters.
How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
How do you know?
Who died and made you King of Clicks?
Do you speak for your employer?
No, you are on sabbatical.
Enjoy it while it lasts.
Cheers.
Winsome Wee Willy,
Did you mean Climate Fail instead of Climate Fall? Climate balls!?
If nobody clicks, whats the point anyway?
And if somebody accidentally does, once again, whats the point?
Maybe you should channel your efforts into finding a description of the GHE, explaining where it may be observed, measured, and documented, for starters.
How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
Copy-paste your braying comment again.
Whining Wee Willy,
Since you whine so plaintively, here you are –
Winsome Wee Willy,
Did you mean Climate Fail instead of Climate Fall? Climate balls!?
If nobody clicks, whats the point anyway?
And if somebody accidentally does, once again, whats the point?
Maybe you should channel your efforts into finding a description of the GHE, explaining where it may be observed, measured, and documented, for starters.
How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
Good boy.
Bray again.
Whining Wee Willy,
Since you whine so plaintively, here you are
Winsome Wee Willy,
Did you mean Climate Fail instead of Climate Fall? Climate balls!?
If nobody clicks, whats the point anyway?
And if somebody accidentally does, once again, whats the point?
Maybe you should channel your efforts into finding a description of the GHE, explaining where it may be observed, measured, and documented, for starters.
How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
Good boy.
Again.
Bray.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“This is all the evidence you need to demonstrate CO2 doesnt impact warming. There has been absolutely no warming at the S Pole.”
S Pole is warmed by tropical ocean heat engine and warmer water around the S pole.
If Average Ocean temperature of about 3.5 C were to warm, it would
warm the S pole. An Ocean Average temperature 4 C, would warm the S pole “a lot”.
The South Pole is isolated from the restof the rest of the planet by the Southern Ocean, the circumpolar curren, high latitude and high altitude.
Whether the cause of global warming is CO2, sunlight or leprechauns you would still expect the South Pole to show less warming than almost anywhere else.
It is generally said it’s more isolated by such factors.
And it’s had a “permanent” ice sheet for millions of years, despite the ocean becoming “4 C or warmer”, but if ocean was 4 C, it would become warmer.
Warmer mostly in winter, it already has ice free polar sea ice in the summer. When doesn’t have ice free polar sea ice in summer, it has colder summer.
How is it possible to behave as opinionated as does this CO2IsLife guy?
He has been explained so often that his claim
” It is the ideal location to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures because there is no water vapor or urban heat island effect. ”
is nonsensical because in the Antarctic (as well as in northeastern Siberia in the winters) the surface is so cold that it is colder than the atmosphere above it,and therefore CO2 effects, if any, are completely different.
Bin, how is it you remain so ignorant and can’t learn?
CO2 would have a chance of actually warming the surface in Antarctica, since surface temps there are so low. CO2 can NOT warm typical Earth surfaces. IF CO2 were a problem, Antarctica would be one of the first places to be affected.
“is nonsensical because in the Antarctic (as well as in northeastern Siberia in the winters) the surface is so cold that it is colder than the atmosphere above it, and therefore CO2 effects, if any, are completely different.”
–
****
No, you have omitted the +33 oC SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS atmospheric greenhouse effect on the northeastern Siberia in winters…
Bindidon, you have omitted the +33 oC Global Scientific Consensus atmospheric greenhouse effect on the northeastern Siberia in winters
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Binny,
You wrote –
” . . . surface is so cold that it is colder than the atmosphere above it, and therefore CO2 effects, if any, are completely different.”
You may be a little confused. There is a persistent low level inversion at the South Pole, because the atmosphere is dry, and sunlight is not abundant. Quite normal, and a well understood meteorological phenomenon – no GHE necessary.
However, your statement that “. . . therefore, CO2 effects, if any, are completely different.” makes little sense. You apparently don’t know if CO2 has any effect at all, but are convinced it must be be totally different to something unstated!
Now, assuming that a GHE has raised the average temperature of the globe by 33 C, and the Antarctic and northern Siberia have had their temperature reduced by the GHE, then other locations must have been made hotter by more than 33C if the average s to be maintained.
Unfortunately, you have no clue where these hotter areas might be, do you?
You can’t even describe the GHE, and admit you have no idea what the effect of CO2 might be – in Antarctica, and probably nowhere else, either.
Got any predictions for Antarctica’s future climate?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
This is a good question, but unfortunately it will be spoiled by trolls who are more interested in thinking of smart-ass comments rather than appreciating the significance of the question.
Beyond lack of urbanization and low water vapor levels, it has at least other features which make it a more attractive laboratory than other places for the heat-via-CO2 concerns. It is less intertwine3d with other weather system on the planet. Also, it gets less soot which can cause warming and melting separate from CO2. And ocean currents from elsewhere in the world do not reach its center.
The CO2 never gets to the South Pole as it is probably absorbed by Trees and other vegetation before it gets there.
Check this out showing the distribution of Carbon Dioxide over time.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011700/a011719/
Warming is also by far confined to the Northern regions, especially in winter, when it is most beneficial.
Just a minor comment.
Rural records may be (and probably are) contaminated by air movements, as air warmed by urban heat islands can travel long distances, affecting distant thermometers. This is quite apart from greatly increased energy use resulting in heat pollution even in rural areas in the last century or so.
Either a “pretty problem” or maybe a “wicked problem”, I suppose.
Mike Flynn,
You preface your comment with –
“Just a minor comment.”
As opposed to which ones you make?
Keep braying.
Willard,
Please stop trying to troll.
How can a constantly trolling stalker encourage others to ‘try to stop trolling’ ?
That doesn’t sound very logical, does it?
Live long and prosper!
Bindidon, please stop trying to troll.
Hey Wiltard, what’s your explanation?
To say the least, I find these results curious.
Once again you reply to someone else, Trolgodyte.
Social conventions seem to be a challenge for you.
Worried Wee Willy,
Dr Spencer wrote “Why are the NOAA adjus[t]ments going in the wrong direction? I don’t know.”
All your avoidance tactics, “silly semantic games”, and other SkyDragon attempts to avoid facing reality, might be for nought, in the face of a scientist making observations, and asking “I wonder why that is?”
Time will tell.
In the meantime, please stop trying to troll. It seems you are wasting your time. Feel free to correct me if my assumption is incorrect.
Mike Flynn,
Who cares what you just wrote?
I sure did not read it.
Bray long and prosper.
Worried Wee Willy,
Dr Spencer wrote “Why are the NOAA adjus[t]ments going in the wrong direction? I dont know.”
All your avoidance tactics, “silly semantic games”, and other SkyDragon attempts to avoid facing reality, might be for nought, in the face of a scientist making observations, and asking “I wonder why that is?”
Time will tell.
In the meantime, please stop trying to troll. It seems you are wasting your time. Feel free to correct me if my assumption is incorrect.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Worried Wee Willy,
Dr Spencer wrote “Why are the NOAA adjus[t]ments going in the wrong direction? I don’t know.”
All your avoidance tactics, “silly semantic games”, and other SkyDragon attempts to avoid facing reality, might be for nought, in the face of a scientist making observations, and asking “I wonder why that is?”
Time will tell.
In the meantime, please stop trying to troll. It seems you are wasting your time. Feel free to correct me if my assumption is incorrect.
Mike Flynn,
Do you recall when Roy banished Sky Dragon cranks like you?
I do:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Copy-paste your comment again.
Worried Wee Willy,
Dr Spencer wrote “Why are the NOAA adjus[t]ments going in the wrong direction? I dont know.”
All your avoidance tactics, “silly semantic games, and other SkyDragon attempts to avoid facing reality, might be for nought, in the face of a scientist making observations, and asking “I wonder why that is?”
Time will tell.
In the meantime, please stop trying to troll. It seems you are wasting your time. Feel free to correct me if my assumption is incorrect.
By the way, I believe Dr Spencer referred to “Sky Dragon slayers”, but latter-day SkyDragons like you just make stuff up you go along. How are your efforts at getting people banned going? At a rough guess, you seem so inept that you couldn’t even get yourself banned!
Feel free to prove me wrong, if you like.
Mike Flynn,
Slayers slay.
The Sky Dragon cranks are just cranks.
They slayed nothing.
So I got to ask –
What are you braying about?
Worried Wee Willy,
Dr Spencer wrote Why are the NOAA adjus[t]ments going in the wrong direction? I dont know.
All your avoidance tactics, silly semantic games, and other SkyDragon attempts to avoid facing reality, might be for nought, in the face of a scientist making observations, and asking I wonder why that is?
Time will tell.
In the meantime, please stop trying to troll. It seems you are wasting your time. Feel free to correct me if my assumption is incorrect.
By the way, I believe Dr Spencer referred to Sky Dragon slayers, but latter-day SkyDragons like you just make stuff up you go along. How are your efforts at getting people banned going? At a rough guess, you seem so inept that you couldnt even get yourself banned!
Feel free to prove me wrong, if you like.
Mike Flynn,
Slayers slay.
The Sky Dragon cranks slayed nothing.
They are just cranks.
So I got to ask –
What are you braying about?
Worried Wee Willy,
Dr Spencer wrote “Why are the NOAA adjus[t]ments going in the wrong direction? I don’t know.”
All your avoidance tactics, silly semantic games, and other SkyDragon attempts to avoid facing reality, might be for nought, in the face of a scientist making observations, and asking “I wonder why that is?”
Time will tell.
In the meantime, please stop trying to troll. It seems you are wasting your time. Feel free to correct me if my assumption is incorrect.
By the way, I believe Dr Spencer referred to Sky Dragon slayers, but latter-day SkyDragons like you just make stuff up you go along. How are your efforts at getting people banned going? At a rough guess, you seem so inept that you couldn’t even get yourself banned!
Feel free to prove me wrong, if you like.
Mike Flynn,
The Sky Dragon cranks slayed nothing.
They are just cranks.
Sometimes they bray.
Cheers.
Worried Wee Willy,
Dr Spencer wrote Why are the NOAA adjus[t]ments going in the wrong direction? I dont know.
All your avoidance tactics, silly semantic games, and other SkyDragon attempts to avoid facing reality, might be for nought, in the face of a scientist making observations, and asking I wonder why that is?
Time will tell.
In the meantime, please stop trying to troll. It seems you are wasting your time. Feel free to correct me if my assumption is incorrect.
By the way, I believe Dr Spencer referred to Sky Dragon slayers, but latter-day SkyDragons like you just make stuff up you go along. How are your efforts at getting people banned going? At a rough guess, you seem so inept that you couldnt even get yourself banned!
Feel free to prove me wrong, if you like.
Mike Flynn,
The Sky Dragon cranks slayed nothing.
They are just cranks.
Sometimes they bray.
Copy your comment again.
Willard, please stop being an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
These are not the magic words.
Mike Flynn,
The Sky Dragon cranks slayed nothing.
They are just cranks.
Sometimes they bray.
Cheers.
Why will winter in Europe be long?
https://i.ibb.co/85bL5BK/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-08-171239.png
” … will winter in Europe be long? ”
To become long here in Germoney, Poland, Czechia, Austria etc, the winter first should start :–)
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/euT2mMonInd1.gif
We had a few days with -7 C at night, a few mm snow; that seems to be all for a while.
Where is the winter you so proudly tell about, ren?
Binny,
You wrote “Where is the winter you so proudly tell about, ren?”
In the future – you dolt!
What does your dissection of the past tell you about the future? Is Ren wrong, right, or don’t you know?
Are you trying to be silly, or does it just come naturally.
Mike Flynn,
I got to ask –
what are you braying about?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
Wiltard,
So you don’t understand Dr. Spencer’s question? Here’s your chance to demonstrate your vast comprehension of climate change. Mr. Climate Fall, your answer?
Troglodyte,
What question?
Hot Air, Wiltard!
Why do you keep trying to plug Ed, Troglodyte?
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
Do you think European winter will be long, Mike?
Here is a bedtime story for you:
Bosnian ski resorts suffer as Europe sees record warm winter
https://apnews.com/article/weather-sports-bosnia-and-herzegovina-europe-business-f132a4185985561236e2eead17036502
Whacky Wee Willy,
If you get anybody to pay you for your insights into the future, let me know. I can no doubt do well separating such fools from their money.
From the year 2000 –
“According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”
Is your source more highly qualified than the foolish Dr. Viner, who also thought he could divine the future?
Sky Dragons like you really are a simple and easily-led bunch, aren’t you? Facts have no impact on your firmly held fantasies!
The future is unknowable, dummy. Guesses are guesses, so guess away! Even you will get it right occasionally.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Here is a prediction –
You will go for But Predictions in a near future:
https://climateball.net/but-predictions/
Live long and bray more.
Whacky Wee Willy,
If you get anybody to pay you for your insights into the future, let me know. I can no doubt do well separating such fools from their money.
From the year 2000
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just arent going to know what snow is, he said.
Is your source more highly qualified than the foolish Dr. Viner, who also thought he could divine the future?
Sky Dragons like you really are a simple and easily-led bunch, arent you? Facts have no impact on your firmly held fantasies!
The future is unknowable, dummy. Guesses are guesses, so guess away! Even you will get it right occasionally.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Here you go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-ii-evidence-that-homogenization-spuriously-warms-trends/#comment-1444992
Cheers.
Whacky Wee Willy,
If you get anybody to pay you for your insights into the future, let me know. I can no doubt do well separating such fools from their money.
From the year 2000
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just arent going to know what snow is, he said.
Is your source more highly qualified than the foolish Dr. Viner, who also thought he could divine the future?
Sky Dragons like you really are a simple and easily-led bunch, arent you? Facts have no impact on your firmly held fantasies!
The future is unknowable, dummy. Guesses are guesses, so guess away! Even you will get it right occasionally.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
I win again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-ii-evidence-that-homogenization-spuriously-warms-trends/#comment-1445045
Keep braying!
Whacky Wee Willy,
If you get anybody to pay you for your insights into the future, let me know. I can no doubt do well separating such fools from their money.
From the year 2000
“According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is, he said.””
Is your source more highly qualified than the foolish Dr. Viner, who also thought he could divine the future?
Sky Dragons like you really are a simple and easily-led bunch, arent you? Facts have no impact on your firmly held fantasies!
The future is unknowable, dummy. Guesses are guesses, so guess away! Even you will get it right occasionally.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-ii-evidence-that-homogenization-spuriously-warms-trends/#comment-1445086
I win again!
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
#3
Haaah, the dumb Flynnson stalker is blathering again.
Lacking as usual anything relevant to say, he is saying something irrelevant.
Carry on, Flynnson, carry on.
Bindidon,
Please stop trying to troll.
Flynnson
Stop trolling. Right now.
Bindidon, please stop trying to troll.
The Greenland-Icelandic high will draw snowfall to Europe. The main upper low is currently over Svalbard, where the center of the polar vortex will be located.
The forecast of our weather service for Europe for 09.02 till 22.02.23
Least minimum temperatures for the period will be on 10.02:
– Kyiv -11
– Bucuresti -10
– Lyon -8
– Vienna -7
– Athens -4
– Warszawa -4
– Berlin -2
– Madrid -1
Some info confirming your always cooling predictions, ren?
So urbanization has less effect as it increases? I guess we need to understand the equilibrium urbanization sensitivity per doubling. The transient urbanization sensitivity might also be interesting to know, however, as noted, urbanization is never transient so do with this mixed metaphor what you will.
rip
The inference from this is that UHI is less of a factor in big cities, and therefore we should calibrate rural weather stations against city weather stations?
Stephen Anderson
Please explain why Donald Trump allowed three Chinese spy balloons to cross US territory undetected, unmolested and with no security precautions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64547394
EM,
Please explain your definition of “spy balloons”.
If they were undetected, how do you know they were even there?
Diabolically ingenious, these Orientals – launching fiendish spy balloons, completely invisible to anybody not actually looking at them – 60 m high, white in colour – obviously cunningly designed to be completely invisible.
I assume our comment was not meant to be taken seriously – just a bizarre attempt at a gotcha, and irrelevant at that!
#1
Haaah, the dumb Flynnson stalker is blathering again.
As usual, having nothing relevant to say, he says something far less relevant than what anyone else could ever say.
Carry on, Flynnson, carry on.
The more you write, the more stupid you seem – much to my delight.
Bindidon, please stop trying to troll.
Is the Flynnson blogbot 77 years old? Or is he 7?
No one will ever know.
But what is known is that he is one of the most BORING blogbots operating on this blog.
Binny,
You are free to feel as bored as you like. If you are claiming that I control your emotions by the power of my mind, you need to replace your tinfoil hat with a new one.
In the meantime, please stop trying to troll.
Didn’t you read the article?
The US military looked back at their records and identified three objects passing over the US during Trump’s presidency.
Similar to the recent Chinese balloon but labelled Unidentified Flying Objects.Of course nobody takes UFOs seriously.
EM,
Were you confused or just being disingenuous by saying they were undetected? Or maybe the US military are so incompetent that they called a white 60m tall balloon, an “Unidentified Flying Object”?
Balloons of that type are not rigid, cannot be steered, and are at the mercy of the wind. Obviously too undetectable for somebody to see with a low-powered telescope from the ground (if they had poor eyesight, and too hard to see from a satellite or a military aircraft equipped with supposedly first rate surveillance equipment. Yes, I’m being sarcastic.
I suppose the US military will now claim every UFO sighting in the last 50 years is really a sneaky Red Chinese ultra invisible, undetectable, secret spy balloon.
Maybe the US military can now steal the Chinese intellectual property from the ultra-sophisticated balloon they have retrieved, and use them against the Chinese, North Koreans, Russians, Syrians, Libyans, Iraqis . . .
Yes, I’m having a laugh at your gullibility.
EM,
I have discovered why 60m tall round white weather balloons could not be detected by the US military –
“Gen. Glen VanHerck, the commander of U.S. Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, said there was a “domain awareness gap” in the Defense Departments ability to detect these four balloons, which were discovered retroactively.”
Hopefully, the US Defense Department will not have to discover that the US is about to lose a conflict retroactively. Must have had a bit of a “domain awareness gap” about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq . . . .
Only discovered that they had wasted a lot of time, blood, and treasure – retroactively!
I wonder if the same “domain awareness gap” is responsible for the GHE illusion?
Donald Rumsfeld got it right.
“There are known knowns, things we know we know. There are known unknowns, things we know we do not know. And there are unknown unknowns, things we do not know we do not know.”
The Chinese balloons were an unknown unknown.
The first four were observed, but nobody recognised their significance. The reports were classed as UFOs and ignored.
Now the military knows what to look for.
EM,
You wrote “The first four were observed, . . .”. But not detected?
And “Now the military knows what to look for.”. Really? A 60 m tall white balloon shaped thing that looks like a balloon – moving with the wind. Might be a balloon – use a pair binoculars to check?
According to NASA, a helium filled high altitude balloon carrying a 10 kg payload, has a radius of 90 m. Tales of 2000 kg payload for a smaller balloon may be slightly exaggerated, but gullible dimwits are capable of believing any silly things journalists foist on them.
As a matter of interest, the Department of Defense has a billion dollar plus contract involving similar US balloons, and the US Navy has been flying similar balloons in and around the US separately.
This of course is quite separate to high altitude US weather and research balloons, which have been used for many years. For example, in 2008, NSF/NASA launched a 7 million cubic ft super pressure balloon. Pretty big.
Your “military” are obviously ignorant, incompetent, deaf dumb and blind, or a figment of your imagination?
Accept reality – not everything you read is true.
Mike, Mike,
EM is not a Murican.
You a never pay attention to what people say, right?
I’m inclined to agree with you about the payload.
A 200ft talk ball On would contain about 126,000 cubic feet of helium. At 1500 cubic feet per kilogram the Chinese balloon could lift about 80kg.
EM,
I’m sure you meant something else when you wrote “A 200ft talk ball On . . . “.
No doubt the miracle of autocorrect in action!
As to payload, NASA’s biggest super pressure balloon – about 18,000,000 cu ft has a payload of roughly 2,000 lbs. The Chinese balloon shot down is reportedly somewhat smaller.
My skepticism about “spy balloons” is based on practical limitations. At around 110,000 ft, the balloon is above about 99.9% of the atmosphere, so intercepting comms, taking pictures and all the rest, has to cope with pretty much the same depth of atmosphere as satellites.
As was demonstrated, it’s relatively easy to detect and destroy a balloon, compared with a satellite.
I think we’re being fed propaganda, for obvious reasons. It doesn’t make much difference whether I’m right or wrong – the facts don’t change. Effective propaganda should assume that the target audience are not all completely stupid, so that when you present the “big lie”, you are more likely to be believed.
Oh well, the “best and the brightest” keep providing graphic demonstrations that they are neither, but we all have to keep paying for their mistakes anyway.
> I think
Did you, Mike?
Name one person who cares.
The Chinese had a global fleet of spy balloons flying over 40 countries and it looks like President Biden and the US are the only ones that took decisive action.
Captain Joe made Freedom Fighters agree that social programs and universal healthcare were very important.
He is that strong.
You dimwit. The Republicans want to do something before nature does. When we’re nothing but a pile of rubble, you leftist dimwits will start screaming that you’re the solution.
Your tears of seething rage taste delicious, Troglodyte.
But Mike Lees are the bestest:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mike-lee-fake-faces-sotu-social-security_n_63e570e1e4b0255caaea7052
We need better troglodytes.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Your tears of seething rage taste delicious, Troglodyte.”
Is that your best effort at being gratuitously offensive? I am laughing at your ineptitude!
On a more serious note, about 95% of the world’s population which is not resident in the US may not be particularly interested in US Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid – or the even the US system of “democracy”.
Even in the US, 50% of that 5% of the worlds population seem to disagree with your type of silliness. Maybe you believe that 2.5% of the population have the right to tell the other 97.5% what to think and what to do, but don’t be surprised if your ideas are not as warmly welcomed as you think they should be.
Accept reality – if you dare.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Have a cookie:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/republicans-angry-joe-biden-rick-scott-social-security-plan.html
Long live and more.
Weary Wee Willy,
You quoted some irrelevant political journalism, no doubt to divert attention away from the fact that you cannot even describe the so-called “greenhouse effect”.
However, “one specific dim element”, “unless reapprovedis”, and “Scott may protestor”, show that either you or your source are stupid, incompetent, or inept.
Maybe you can name one person who cares for your opinion about anything at all, but your present trolling efforts are just making you look quite detached from reality.
You are lapsing back into fantasy with your “Mike Flynn”, “have a cookie”, “live long and more”.
Do you really expect any reasonable person to have the faintest idea of what you are waffling about? How about trying to explain the role of CO2 and H2O in the four and a half billion year cooling of the Earth’s surface?
How hard can it be, even for an inept wannabe SkyDragon troll like you?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
This is a sub thread about the hypocrisy of Freedom Fighters.
Every comment from you helps me adduce evidence, e.g.:
https://www.newsweek.com/lauren-boebert-prays-joe-biden-days-few-backlash-1779467
How do you feel about theocracies, Mike?
No need to answer.
Enjoy your sabbatical, and do continue.
Weary Wee Willy,
You quoted some irrelevant political journalism, no doubt to divert attention away from the fact that you cannot even describe the so-called greenhouse effect.
However, one specific dim element, unless reapprovedis, and Scott may protestor, show that either you or your source are stupid, incompetent, or inept.
Maybe you can name one person who cares for your opinion about anything at all, but your present trolling efforts are just making you look quite detached from reality.
You are lapsing back into fantasy with your Mike Flynn, have a cookie, live long and more.
Do you really expect any reasonable person to have the faintest idea of what you are waffling about? How about trying to explain the role of CO2 and H2O in the four and a half billion year cooling of the Earths surface?
How hard can it be, even for an inept wannabe SkyDragon troll like you?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Suit yourself:
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/09/somehow-missing-from-the-official-twitter-files-twitter-had-to-continually-respond-to-trumps-gop-officials-demands-for-taking-down-tweets/
Weary Wee Willy,
You quoted some irrelevant political journalism, no doubt to divert attention away from the fact that you cannot even describe the so-called greenhouse effect.
However, one specific dim element, unless reapprovedis, and Scott may protestor, show that either you or your source are stupid, incompetent, or inept.
Maybe you can name one person who cares for your opinion about anything at all, but your present trolling efforts are just making you look quite detached from reality.
You are lapsing back into fantasy with your Mike Flynn, have a cookie, live long and more.
Do you really expect any reasonable person to have the faintest idea of what you are waffling about? How about trying to explain the role of CO2 and H2O in the four and a half billion year cooling of the Earths surface?
How hard can it be, even for an inept wannabe SkyDragon troll like you?
Carry on.
Very well, Mike Flynn:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-trump-twitter-files-collusion-biden-censorship-1234675969/
Willard, please stop being an idiot.
These are not the magic words, Mike Flynn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpKLHWg2Ffg&t=17s
Willard, please stop being an idiot.
Again, Mike:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/11/koch-brothers-afp-action-advocacy-far-right-republicans
Did you forget our safe word?
Ant,
Defense officials have said. LOL. You dimwit.
Thank God! for Joe. He found those damn Chinese spy balloons. SuperJoe.
I just want to know why you guys want to see it all torn down. Do you believe you’ll have a special place in the Marxist Kingdom? Or do you hate seeing others doing better than you and want them to join you in your particular purgatory? Your special misery?
It’s pretty easy to tear down. It’s going to be hard to build it back.
Troglodyte in action:
https://tenor.com/6Biv.gif
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
Very selfish people, you Republicans.
You want to tear down social security and Medicare. Fine to be rich in America, but you want to let the poor die of hunger and disease because they can’t pay the bills.
You talk of collapse, but you endanger the system yourselves. The next American Revolution is unlikely to be a coup of the Far Right against a perceived Liberal government. It is more likely to be the poor rising up against the wealthy and uncaring oligarchy of which you are part.
ent…to be fair, the recent balloon citing was detected by Canada’s NORAD system and tracked. They handed the info over to the US. NORAD was set up to detect threats over the NP from Russia, and apparently that’s the way the balloon came.
There was another object shot down today over Alaska and it is still unidentified.
Gordon,
You have to wonder about a nuclear- equipped military, which just shoots things out of the sky without apparently making any effort at all to establish what they are shooting at.
There are about 180 weather balloons released each day by the US Weather Service each day, all of which should reach around 100,000 ft before bursting. They may travel hundreds of miles from their launch points before this happens.
I hope the US military is not so incompetent that they have decided to shoot random weather balloons out of the sky because they can’t be bothered taking the time to identify their target!
As an example, the USS Vincennes shot down regular Iran Air Flight 655, claiming to have mistaken it for an attacking fighter jet. The Vincennes’ own instruments placed it within Iranian territorial waters without Iranian permission at the time. 290 civilian deaths.
Nothing seems to have changed. Weather balloon, civilian airliner, UFO, just claim it’s a threat and blow it away! How to win friends and influence people.
Biden should have shot the balloon down immediately, in case it was a threat
Biden should not have shot the balloon down immediately without identifying it first
What will the next criticism be, and will it also contradict previous criticism?
Tim S said earlier “Most of the USA uses the units of commerce.” referring, oddly enough, to “imperial units” inherited from the British.
Luckily, Myanmar and Liberia share the US enthusiasm for imperialist units of measurement, so the US is not alone in its determination to resist progress.
Alas, signs of imperial disintegration are everywhere – even the US car industry uses metric fasteners and measures engine capacity in litres! You never know, even “climate scientists” will start caving in, and measuring temperatures in Celsius degrees!
Maybe.
Speaking as someone who actually did a bit of climate science in his youth, I’ve been using SI units and Celsius temperatures for fifty years.
EM,
Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, so you are just making stuff up.
You didnt do “a bit of climate science”, because there is no such thing.
No GHE either.
Carry on dreaming – other SkyDragon cultists won’t laugh at you.
Full winter in Europe.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/02/12/0300Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-1.92,57.58,709
Absolutely dramatic winter in Europe!
If you are courageous enough look at the pictures below…
Forecast 10.02.23
https://i.postimg.cc/Qd4rGg85/Europe-at-night-2023-02-10.png
And day after day it becomes more horrifying!
Forecast 12.02.23
https://i.postimg.cc/s2jbTwt7/Europe-at-night-2023-02-12.png
Now I prefer to stop, too much cold.
Maybe Palmowski tries to stop his boring Coolista garbage.
And shows how really cold it is in Anatolia and Northern Syria, where hundred thousands of people survived the earthquake but currently live day and night … on the streets, often enough without tents and proper food.
These predictions are mere propaganda.
Blinny is a propagandist, a Nazi propagandist.
Troglodyte is a Freedom Fighter.
Freedom Fighters are Very Intelligent:
https://youtu.be/f5fJqpaX1J4
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
You, Anderson, the 6.9L pickup driver, are a real fuel propagandist!
And who names me ‘Nazi’, Anderson, is an asshole.
Ireneusz Palmowski
” propaganda ” ???
Propaganda, by a German weather service?
Are you kidding us, Palmowski?
Are you paid by the Polish fossile fuel suppliers?
*
What about showing us how really cold it is in Anatolia and Northern Syria, where hundred thousands of people survived the earthquake but currently live day and night on the streets, often enough without tents and proper food?
Far from spring in Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/nCm8xqS/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-10-080303.png
Winter in southern Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/LrZbsCg/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-10-082206.png
” Far from spring in Europe. ”
Did I overlook something? Has the definition of ‘spring’ been changed recently such that February has become a spring month?
How ‘springy’ February has been since 1900 we see by ‘dissecting the past’, he he.
Top 3 of lowest temps on Febrary 10 (GM: Germany; BO: Belarus) since 1900
GME00129838 56-76 1956 2 10 -36.3
BOM00026850 57-83 1940 2 10 -33.9
GMW00034171 55-76 1956 2 10 -33.9
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
> Intense rain on 27 January brought provisionally the wettest day ever recorded in Auckland, New Zealand, with a number of weather stations recording in excess of 200mm in 18 hours. The weather station of Auckland (Albany) recorded 260.6mm between 3am and 9pm and some parts of the city were hit with more than 150mm in the space of three hours, bringing severe flooding.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/30/weather-tracker-auckland-hit-by-wettest-january-on-record
La Nina operates in the western Pacific. SOI remains positive.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
New Zealands North Island braces for cyclone Gabrielle.
https://i.ibb.co/hHh6Wx1/mimictpw-ausf-latest.gif
Solar magnetic field weakens, fewer and fewer geomagnetic storms.
https://i.ibb.co/488nrKZ/onlinequery.png
No wonder:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ferJD68f2Ttd-D1hi6WGQ1rjod0qmF1Q/view
Reality surpasses your charts. Perhaps now is the peak of solar activity.
Bookmarked.
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE – USA EDITION
https://twitter.com/jeffgoodell/status/1623678100692406273
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
tim s…”I admit that I do not understand the sub-culture of people who exchange juvenile insults back and forth. I also prefer to spend my time being productive, so that may explain it”.
***
Tim…I can understand your concern but maybe you have cloistered yourself away to the point you are unaware of the ridiculous amount of propaganda and conditioning going on today. Today, I rad in the news that a mother in the US had to sue a school board to stop them conditioning her daughter into presenting herself as a boy. They have gone so far as to teach her to wrap her breasts to conceal them.
This is a child for cripes sake and she is being brainwashed by cretins into making a decision regarding whether she is a boy or a girl.
The same is true of climate alarmists, and if you sit back and allow them enough room, they will eventually have legislation passed to make it illegal to contradict their propaganda. In the UK, a Conservative government has already begun the Big-Brotherly act of restricting access to certain parts of Oxford and Cambridge to cut down on CO2 emissions.
If you believe in that sort of pseudo-science, no more needs to be said.
Couth language and arguments simply don’t work when expressing emotion. I am all for civilized discussion, provided it is available. The problem with civilized discussion is that abject nonsense can be passed off as scientific in nature. The arguments you witness here on Roy’s blog that you classify as juvenile insults is actually not of that nature. It’s intended more as humour than anything.
Occasionally, someone, including myself, will have a bad-hair day and lash out, but on the whole, the insults are harmless ribaldry. If you take the time and read between the lines, you’ll find cutting edge scientific discussions going on that you won’t find on more ‘cultured’ sites.
> If you take the time and read between the lines, youll find cutting edge scientific discussions going on that you wont find on more “cultured” sites.
🧐
Have you ever visited Oxford or Cambridge? Their city centres are a maze of narrow streets wide enough for one cart, with 400 year old buildings on either side. They are not designed for modern traffic and cannot be modified to make them so.
For decades (except for taxis, delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles and the ubiquitous bicycles) retractable bollards have limited access to Cambridge city centre from Maudlin Bridge to Downing College and from Christ’s Piece to the river.
Further out there is gridlock as Silicon Glen draws in tech companies and workers. The council promotes park-and-ride, with people encouraged to use the big car parks at the edge of town and ride buses into the centre.
Climate change might be a fashionable excuse for more traffic control, but in practice its the least of their worries.
I hate my autocorrect. That should be Silicon Fen. (Fen is the local name for wetlands, marshes and peat bogs, which make up a considerable proportion of East Anglia.)
You and Wiltard should just text each other.
Why text Willard?
I was talking to Gordon.
ent…”Climate change might be a fashionable excuse for more traffic control, but in practice its the least of their worries”.
***
I have punted on the River Cam. My only experience with Oxford is watching the Endeavour series. I think I may have driven through it though.
I get what you are saying about congestion. My point has more to do with the intrusion into the democratic rights of people to move about freely.
Here in Vancouver, Canada, we had a city council who went out of their way to make it difficult to drive a car in the city. The were pushing bicycle lanes to the point they made Stanley Park unavailable to seniors who wanted to enjoy a meal in a tea house in the park.
Recently they were bounced out of office due to people becoming tired of their Green principles.
I am not opposed to making it safer for cyclists but there are those eco-types who think motorists have no rights on the road. Having said that, I will walk to a destination, even though it is miles away, rather than take my vehicle. I have always understood the benefits of exercise, both physically and mentally.
Much to my chagrin, I have found that bicycles have access to certain bridges and over-passes in the region while pedestrians have no access. That’s insanity. They have special lanes for bikes but nothing for pedestrians.
“I have punted on the River Cam. ”
Brilliant. One of life’s great ways to relax. Smile emoji.
In Cambridge the pedestrians and cyclists have been sharing the paths since the bicycle was invented and it works well. Both tend to keep to the left when they meet. Some towns split the paths with a painted line down the middle, bicycles one side and pedestrians on the other.
There’s a narrow cycle lane on many urban roads, though they can be “interesting” to use. Cycling past the Fitzwilliam Museum I would be caught between the Scylla of traffic to my right and the Charybdis of the open water filled drain to my left.
“Much to my chagrin, I have found that bicycles have access to certain bridges and over-passes in the region while pedestrians have no access. Thats insanity. They have special lanes for bikes but nothing for pedestrians. ”
Agreed.
“My point has more to do with the intrusion into the democratic rights of people to move about freely.”
I’m not quite as sure about this one. I feel that my democratic right to do whatever I want should reach a limit when it harms someone else.
As was once said “My freedom to wave my fists about ends where your nose begins.”
sorry…having trouble posting…lost location of this post from Tim S.
tim s…” How much actual heat has been trapped by human emissions of CO2?”
***
The question is faulty. CO2 can only trap a small fraction of surface radiation (IR) and that radiation is a product of heat dissipation. That is, as heat is dissipated at the surface, IR is produced in its place, therefore no heat can be trapped since it has already been dissipated as part of the production of IR.
I am sure alarmists will argue that the IR represents a source of heat, and that’ a fair argument, however, the heat allegedly trapped has already been dissipated, so the trapped IR can technically be claimed as a transfer of heat, albeit, an apparent transfer since not heat is actually transferred.
A transfer of heat is not trapped heat. That notion is a faulty premise in climate alarm, as if heat transfer to GHGs is warming the atmosphere. No proof. The heat has already been dissipated at the surface and the heat represented in CO2 can do nothing but be re-radiated as IR. Since the majority gases, N2/O2 cannot absorb it and it is highly unlikely that any transfer from a trace gas to the majority gases will make a difference in their temperatures (Ideal Gas Law), the so-called trapped heat is a non sequitur argument.
A similar argument is used to claim CO2 absorp-tion of surface IR slows the rate of heat dissipation at the surface. However, by the time the CO2 captures the tiny amount of surface radiation, the surface has already cooled. Therefore, something else has controlled the rate of surface cooling.
That something is explained by Newton’s Law of Cooling. The law states that the rate of dissipation of a surface is dependent on the temperature difference between the surface and its environment. The environment for Earth’s surface re radiation is the atmosphere, and it’s temperature is the determining factor.
To prove CO2 has anything to do with the temperature of the atmosphere one needs to prove that CO2 at 0.04% has that ability. That has never been proved, in fact, it contradicts the Ideal Gas Law that such a trace gas can have a significant effect on the temperature of the atmosphere.
> A transfer of heat is not trapped heat.
*Chef’s kiss*.
Keep them gems coming, Bordon!
Wily Wee Willy,
Obscurity and crypticism might not achieve what you want them to achieve, although you have no idea what you are are trying to achieve, have you?
No “heat trapping”. No GHE.
You are an idiot.
Even your attempts to troll are inept and incompetent.
Worth a good snigger at you tying yourself into knots!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about, and do you think that trapped heat isn’t related to heat transfer?
Willard, please stop being a delusional idiot.
I think wee willy may be autistic.
These are not the magic words, Mike:
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/heat
Willard, please stop acting the fool.
Not the magic words, Mike Flynn:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ww…which part of ‘the heat is dissipated as the IR is radiated at the surface’ did you not understand? Any heat created after the IR leaves the surface has nothing to do with the rate of surface heat dissipation.
This part, Bordon:
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-to-know-pathological-liars
Heat is motion. Deal with it.
wee willy wanker…you need to stay away from science you don’t understand, which is pretty well all science.
Why don’t you fire up a 1500 watt ring on an electric stove and sit on it. There will be motion all right.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Check this out:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
You’re welcome!
Willard, please stop trolling.
The number of sunspots jumps strongly, but the UV index indicates the peak of solar activity in this cycle.
https://i.ibb.co/5LhdRHG/EISNcurrent.png
https://i.ibb.co/PTx06tg/mgii-composite-2.png
From Inside Climate News –
“Scientists Say Climate Change Contributed to the Bronze Age CollapseOne of Historys Biggest Riddles”
No doubt due to the Bronze Age GHE – all those people exhaling polluting CO2!
Climate changes. Always has, always will.
There were a lot of cows during the Bronze Age.
There were less cowboys back then:
https://twitter.com/thescottbarber/status/1623706680960905216
Coincidence?
“Climate changes. Always has, always will.”
Indeed. But some people have a problem with the notion that human beings can affect it. It’s like only God can do that, such is the religious fervour which deniers of this notion promote their message.
And alarmists have this notion that something as good and critical as CO2 is somehow bad.
There are plenty of things that are critical for our personal health that will kill you in large doses, even water. It is not the substance itself but the effect it has is increasing amounts.
barry says:
”There are plenty of things that are critical for our personal health that will kill you in large doses, even water. It is not the substance itself but the effect it has is increasing amounts.”
And if one looks at life expectancy around the world there is plenty of reason when you look for the underlying causes. . .there is no separable indication that more CO2 is bad. The greening of the planet could be the strongest indicator of it being good. Theory has long held that the standard by which we measure the ideal state of CO2 at 280ppm is uncomfortably close to mass extinction. And when you look at the effect on the human population of over 400ppm now its mass extinction also. Its all histrionics. There is no question whatsoever that the extension of life expectancy has a strong link to fossil fuels. Can the future be different? Sure, but some guy looking through ass-end of a bottle or water pipe isn’t going to have clear vision.
barry,
Which people are you referring to? Not any rational person, obviously.
Maybe you could describe the GHE which cooled the planet for four and a half billion years, or the GHE which some deranged SkyDragons claim heats the planet!
Either one will do.
Nitwit.
Recently retired US Senator James Inhofe said in a 2012 speech on the Senate floor that, “God’s still up there, and the arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”
Even though I said it is as if people think only God can change climate, here is an example of a person in power who actually thinks that. This sentiment is also included in his book on climate change.
But plenty of people don’t think humans can change the climate. Including you.
Logical fallacy alert.
Artificial AGW does not preclude the possibility of earlier natural climate change, or vice versa.
Just because there were forest fires before humans doesn’t mean that humans can’t start forest fires.
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/6/severe-weather-hampers-earthquake-rescue-in-turkey-and-syria
Meanwhile, in Antarctica:
https://www.awi.de/en/about-us/service/press/single-view/rekord-tief-der-meereisbedeckung-in-der-antarktis.html
Prolly the Urban Heat Island effect.
Wiltard,
So, can you explain the point you’re trying to make? Your intellect is way beyond us. And, then, answer Dr. Spencer’s question. We’re waiting, genius.
Troglodyte,
Indeed I can. All I need would be to read the quote slowly. But for you I have something better:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scandal
Could you explain to readers who is Larry Householder?
Wiltard,
Thank you. We are so lucky to have an enormous intellect like you posting here.
My pleasure, Troglodyte:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Householder
Willard, please stop trolling.
More of the same old, same old. It’s summer in Antarctica dumbo!!!
ps. get back to us in the Antarctic winter (there is no autumn) and let us know how much of the ice has disappeared.
C’mon, Bordon.
Was it less summer in Antarctica during the last 39 years?
” More of the same old, same old. Its summer in Antarctica dumbo!!! ”
*
Yeah. Here are they, the (bottom-up sorted) sea ice extent summers in Antarctica:
2023: 3.23 (Mkm^2)
2017: 3.78
2022: 3.86
2019: 3.87
2006: 4.16
1997: 4.20
2018: 4.21
1981: 4.41
1993: 4.41
1985: 4.46
So what! A bit over 1 Mkm^2 difference, that’s nothing, I tell you.
Nothing!
*
But… if the Globe cools down, as Palmowski keeps trying to tell us, shouldn’t the last 10 years be at the other end of the list?
*
Source:
https://tinyurl.com/yc7ws4ur
” … let us know how much of the ice has disappeared.”
*
Yeah. Here are they, the (bottom-up sorted) sea ice extent winters in Antarctica:
2022: 14.90 (Mkm^2)
2017: 15.30
2019: 15.30
1986: 15.32
2002: 15.41
1983: 15.47
1991: 15.55
1980: 15.56
1990: 15.57
2018: 15.70
*
We’ll see how it goes over there next July.
*
Source
https://tinyurl.com/2nd6tnfx
*
Currently it looks nice: after a strong drop end of last year, sea ice is recovering pretty good these days in Antarctica, despite… summer time there.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
Prolly too cold for the ice to slide into the ocean.
It is almost certain that La Nina will persist into autumn in the southern hemisphere.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC006&year=2023&month=02
“NINO3.4 outlook
Oceanic indicators of La Nina have eased from peak values reached during spring, although the atmospheric indicators have been slow to respond. Recent observations and model outlooks indicate this event is easing. The Bureau’s latest weekly NINO3.4 value to 29 January 2023 was −0.6 C, which is outside La Nina thresholds (−0.8 C and cooler).
All surveyed climate models indicate sea surface temperatures in the central tropical Pacific (NINO3.4) will return to ENSO-neutral by February 2023 and remain at neutral levels at least until April. Model accuracy is generally lower at this time of year than at other times, therefore, ENSO outlooks extending beyond autumn should be viewed with caution.
ENSO events typically peak in late (southern hemisphere) summer and decay during the autumn; the current outlooks indicate this La Nina event will decay slightly earlier than usual. La Nina events typically increase the chance of above-average rainfall for northern and eastern Australia during summer. When ENSO is neutral, there is typically little influence on Australian climate patterns from the Pacific Ocean.
Persistent NINO3.4 values above +0.8 C typically indicate El Nino, while values below −0.8 C typically indicate La Nina.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean®ion=NINO34
Nino 3.4 values are below -0.8. SOI is rising. The BOM is wrong, or cheating.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
SOI values for 11 Feb, 2023
Average SOI for last 30 days 11.30
Average SOI for last 90 days 13.92
Daily contribution to SOI calculation 21.37
When you say “BOM is wrong, or cheating” does that also refer to your original post, since you linked to BOM. Or are you saying that BOM selectively cheats?
BoM just plain cheats, no selectivity required.
The point is that ren cites it positively to reinforce whatever obsession he has at that moment, but as soon as someone else cites it to rebut what he says, ren then trashes the source he relied on in the first place.
The reflex trashing of weather/climate institutes by AGW ‘skeptics’ is not new, nor is their propensity to cite the data from those same institutes to prove a point.
This kind of opportunistic BS is the main currency of ‘deniers’.
The BOM is wrong about its forecasts, as current data show. My words refer to false forecasts, what the actual data show.
You just posted below (https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-ii-evidence-that-homogenization-spuriously-warms-trends/#comment-1446129) that “La Nina will not end until autumn in the southern hemisphere” and again linked to BOM.
Since the southern hemisphere Autumn starts March 20, you are in agreement with the BOM forecast.
If the BoM is wrong about its forecasts, ren, why are you citing them to support your prediction above?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-ii-evidence-that-homogenization-spuriously-warms-trends/#comment-1445761
It’s just reflex denier activity – cite a reference when you think it helps, and trash it when it doesn’t.
So on February 11, 2023 at 10:08 AM the BoM is a sound source for you, ren, but then on February 11, 2023 at 11:30 AM it’s “wrong or cheating.”
And it’s all evident just above this post in the space of three posts.
Don’t worry, you’re not alone in this self-contradiction. It’s seems to be prerequisite to joining the Climate Contrarian Party.
Re-stating a point I made earlier regarding the fallacy that CO2 and other GHGs can trap heat or determine the rate of surface heat dissipation.
Any heat created by atmospheric CO2, after absorbing a small fraction of surface radiation, is new heat created by the CO2 after absorbing surface radiation. The new heat has absolutely nothing to do with the heat dissipated at the surface when the radiation was produced. The new heat is not trapped at all, it is newly created heat.
Therefore, the notion that Co2 in the atmosphere can control the rate of heat dissipation at the surface is nonsense. The heat dissipated at the surface is immediately lost as the infrared energy is created. The emitted infrared is NOT heat, it is an entirely different form of energy. It can be converted back to heat if absorbed by a cooler body but the amount of IR absorbed and the distance it has traveled (inverse square law) will determine the amount of heat created in the absorbing body.
The Ideal Gas Law was painstakingly formed by experts in the field. At least 5 major scientists contributed to the law. The atmosphere is a gas and although not an ideal gas, it is close enough to have the IGL apply, at least as a ballpark assessment. The IGL makes it clear that trace gases like CO2 and WV can add no more heat to the atmosphere than a trivial amount.
I should add, wrt WV, that I am talking about the amount of surface radiation it absorbs. WV, especially in the Tropics, can absorb energy directly from the Sun and warm.
How much that adds to atmospheric heat in the Tropics has never been determined as far as I know. There is no reason, given the broad solar spectrum, that nitrogen and oxygen should not warm as well due to incoming solar.
As an example, climbers on Everest, even in summer, are climbing on ice and snow. It gets so cold at night they need to bundle up in sleeping bags rated down to -40C. During the day, however, in direct sunlight, they can shed clothing, although they must protect against UV burns.
Any warming they feel due to sunlight must be warming the air molecules as well since snow and ice is unlikely to warm the molecules by conduction and convection. Therefore, it seems likely that solar energy warms nitrogen and oxygen, which make up 99% of the atmosphere.
C’mon, Bordon.
Do yourself a favor.
Put water in a pan.
Put the pan on the stove.
Fire the stove.
Start a chronometer.
Wait for the water to boil.
Then repeat the whole process, but with a lid on the pot.
Tell me how much faster that goes.
You have a talent for irrelevance, wee willy.
C’mon, Bordon.
You are the irrelevancy here.
Weird Wee Willy,
Pans? Water?
What are you blathering about?
Are you trying to avoid admitting that that you can’t describe the GHE, so you try to pretend that the GHE is irrelevant?
Strange.
You’re braying again, Mike.
Here:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
That is all.
Weird Wee Willy,
Pans? Water?
What are you blathering about?
Are you trying to avoid admitting that that you cant describe the GHE, so you try to pretend that the GHE is irrelevant?
Strange.
Does your link pertain to pans, water, overcoats – or similar nonsensical diversions?
Can’t say or wont say?
Fool.
Mike?
Flynn?
Braying?
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers?
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m waiting for Wiltard to answer Dr. Spencer’s question.
Where have you tried to answer it, Troglodyte?
My answer is that they’re corrupt propagandists like you, and not scientists.
Then my answer is that you’re just a silly troglodyte, Troglodyte:
https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2023/02/10/desantis-guns-election-emails-ban-tampa-convention-center-concealed/
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny…”Maybe Palmowski [Ren] tries to stop his boring Coolista garbage”.
***
Ren is only trying to keep us abreast of the truth.
” … abreast of the truth. ”
*
The guy who constantly distorts and misrepresents Newton’s words surely means the ‘truth for the Pseudo-skeptics’.
Like here for example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1445128
I am not misrepresenting Newton’s words, I am pointing out an apparent error in the translation.
I don’t consider it possible that someone of Newton’s brilliance could acknowledge that the Moon moves with a linear motion which is bent into a curvilinear motion by gravity, while keeping the same face pointed at Earth, while claiming it also rotated on a local axis.
I can see a 19th century translator making that mistake thus misinterpreting the meaning of Newton’s words. I can most definitely see you making the same mistake as the translator based on your dependence on authority figures.
C’mon, Bordon.
You are not “pointing out an apparent error in the translation.”
You do not have the authoritative translation in the first place!
I’ve challenged you at least ten times already.
What will it take?
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Ive challenged you at least ten times already.”
As Einstein said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
Are you going to “challenge” him eleven times, and expect a different result?
You really are a strange one, aren’t you? You acknowledge that you can’t even describe the mythical GHE, you can’t explain its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, but you still seem convinced that you are more intelligent than a box full of hair!
You could always try and give your opinions of politics – and hope that someone actually gives a crap about your views. You can’t even name one person who values your opinions, can you?
Here’s a “challenge” for you – try and describe the GHE. Waste as much time as you like.
I hope the sound of my laughter doesn’t prevent you from rising to the challenge.
Idiot.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Check this out:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Youre welcome!
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote “Check this out:”
No. Why should I? If I don’t, what are you going to do about it?
Rhetorical question, purely to point out to others that you are both incompetent and impotent – as well as insane (according to Albert Einstein’s definition).
Maybe you could spend some time looking for a description of the greenhouse effect, but it would be wasted, in my opinion.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Fool.
Hey, Mike Flynn –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
What are you braying about?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote Check this out:
No. Why should I? If I dont, what are you going to do about it?
Rhetorical question, purely to point out to others that you are both incompetent and impotent as well as insane (according to Albert Einsteins definition).
Maybe you could spend some time looking for a description of the greenhouse effect, but it would be wasted, in my opinion.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Fool.
Psst, Mike Flynn –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
What are you braying about?
Find me the translation I told you about. It’s hard to find.
I think it was done circa 1960 and revised circa 1995.
Come on, Bordon.
I am not your monkey.
Give me something in return.
Put your honour on the line, if you have any left.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Put your honour on the line, if you have any left.”
Ooooooh, that will cut him to the quick, do you think?
I suppose it’s a change to you posting repetitive links to a meaningless and pointless video of something you are obviously too frightened to describe!
If you had discovered a description of the GHE, you would no doubt be waving it under my nose with glee. But you haven’t, so you attempt to divert attention by posting links to random nonsense, hoping that someone will think you have more brains than a goldfish.
Post away, Wee Willy, post away. I’ll keep ignoring you.
Dimwitted SkyDragon cultist.
Mike, Mike,
Just what are you braying about?
This:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote “This”.
This what?
Oooooh – mysterious!
Dimwitted SkyDragon fool.
This, Mike:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Keep braying like a dumb Sky Dragon Brayer.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Robertson
” I am not misrepresenting Newton’s words, I am pointing out an apparent error in the translation. ”
Robertson, you are such a dumb liar (btw exactly as are Clint R and the Hunter boy).
Look at the comment sequence starting with:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1432518
*
” I can see a 19th century translator making that mistake thus misinterpreting the meaning of Newton’s words. ”
I show three different translations out of Newton’s original text in Latin (one in English in 1729, one in French in 1749, one in German in 1872); there are further ones in Italian, Russian, Japanese and Dutch.
And all these people who weren’t in touch with each other miraculously made the same mistake?
Only dense, opinionated idiots like you three can invent such nonsense.
I forgot the Swedish translation, OMG.
“I show three different translations out of Newtons original text in Latin (one in English in 1729, one in French in 1749, one in German in 1872)”
***
So, you are claiming the three translations had nothing to do with each other, like one did not copy the other? Or that all three believed the Moon rotates on a local axis hence made the same mistake with the translation.
It is a well established paradigm that the Moon must rotate exactly once per orbit. Paradigms are not science, they are simply a form of consensus. It only took one scientist, Nicola Tesla, to prove them wrong. His proof was elegant and to the point.
You know what, I have yet to see one proof that the Moon rotates on a local axis once per orbit. Maybe you could be the first.
” So, you are claiming the three translations had nothing to do with each other, like one did not copy the other? Or that all three believed the Moon rotates on a local axis hence made the same mistake with the translation. ”
You are such an idiot, Robertson.
What about looking for the other translations made directly from Latin – in Italian, Swedish, Russian, Japanese and Dutch?
What about doing some research over all of the seven, checking if they copied and pasted Andrew Motte’s first English translation, instead of showing off with your egomaniac claims?
*
” Nicola Tesla, to prove them wrong. His proof was elegant and to the point. ”
Tesla didn’t prove anything. He just made a claim, without scientifically backing up with any proof.
*
” You know what, I have yet to see one proof that the Moon rotates on a local axis once per orbit. Maybe you could be the first. ”
You liar!
I have shown the work of many of them, but you cowardly keep discrediting and denigrating any science you are unable to understand, instead of learning how to scientifically contradict it.
The sharp drop was followed by another sudden rise in temperature in the middle stratosphere over the North Pole.
https://i.ibb.co/b5ft2W7/pole30-nh.png
Earlier, Willard, tried to play the homosexual innuendo card. He wrote –
“Did you forget our safe word?”
Willard (more of a masturbator, although he fancies himself the master baiter) tries, without success, once again to divert attention away from the fact that he cannot even describe the “greenhouse effect” which seems to believe exists.
Of course, SkyDragon cultists such as Wee Willy won’t actually commit themselves to believing in anything at all, when it comes right down to it. Hence, the attempts to portray themselves as flagrantly prancing homosexuals (or one of the other variations on a theme), hoping that this will enable the suppression of free speech which they support.
Bad luck. Nature doesn’t care what fools like Wee Willy opine, nor do I. Facts are facts, and the fact is that the planet has cooled for four and a half billion years – GHE, CO2, GHGs, and all the test of the SkyDragon fantasies notwithstanding.
Wee Willy can prance, dance, wriggle and squirm all he likes. At least he should benefit from the exercise.
He can return to the village which lost its idiot a fitter person, if no wiser.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Check this out:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Please unconfuse your fetishes.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote (again) –
“Check this out:”
As I wrote before “No. Why should I? If I dont, what are you going to do about it?
Rhetorical question, purely to point out to others that you are both incompetent and impotent as well as insane (according to Albert Einsteins definition).
Maybe you could spend some time looking for a description of the greenhouse effect, but it would be wasted, in my opinion.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Fool.”
Still no description of the “greenhouse effect”? Why am I not surprised?
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Try this”
As I wrote before “No. Why should I? If I dont, what are you going to do about it?
Rhetorical question, purely to point out to others that you are both incompetent and impotent as well as insane (according to Albert Einsteins definition).
Maybe you could spend some time looking for a description of the greenhouse effect, but it would be wasted, in my opinion.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Fool.”
Still no description of the “greenhouse effect”? Why am I not surprised?
Mike Flynn,
Do you often bray to yourself like that?
Allow me to help:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Allow me to help”
Awwwww, not even going to give me a hint? Too much trouble for you?
No, I don’t think I need “help” from a SkyDragon idiot, who can’t even describe the mythical GHE!
Let me know when you’ve posted your nonsensical link (it must be nonsensical, if you refuse to say what it’s about), 50 times.
I’ll be sure to give an extra loud snort of derision.
Are you really a homosexual, or just pretending – trying for sympathy from the woke SkyDragon cultists? Not that I care – you’re still an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF
Keep braying.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
“As I wrote before”
You always write the same thing.
Try this:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
That should quench your thirst for knowledge.
Its a mistake to ignore that water vapor molecules have been increasing 7 times faster than CO2 molecules. The effect of water vapor on climate change is addressed in Ref 51 of (click my name)
It is a worse mistake to peddle one’s talking point without having paid attention to what one responds, Dan:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8?t=652
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“It is a worse mistake to peddle ones talking point without having paid attention to what one responds, Dan:”
Please stop being stupid and meaningless.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Nevertheless:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
It is a worse mistake to peddle ones talking point without having paid attention to what one responds, Dan:
Please stop being stupid and meaningless.
Dan Pangburn
Thanks for the link to your Climate Change Drivers article. An interesting read with a considerable number of errors, too many to usefully discuss here.
Rather disappointed by the way in which you sprinkle terms like egrarious throughout. These emotional judgements tend to occur where your arguments are weakest and suggest that your biases are distorting your thinking.
Mike Flynn,
You forget the magic words again:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Enjoy!
Willard, please stop trolling.
That’s more like it, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m a bit confused by this apparent contradiction in the article.
“In Fig. 5 we see that the 881 stations with no trend in urbanization during 1975-2014 have an average 0.011 C/decade warmer trend in the adjusted (homogenized) data than in the unadjusted data. This, by itself, is entirely possible since there are time-of-observation (“Tobs”) adjustments made to the data, adjustments for station moves, instrumentation types, etc.”
Yes, TOBs was what I thought of immediately, too. But in the very next paragraph…
“Fig. 5. GHCN station temperature trend adjustments from the homogenization procedure inexplicably increase the station temperature trends as growth in urbanization occurs, rather than decrease them as would be expected if NOAA’s homogenization procedure was removing spurious warming from urban heat island effects.”
Why was the explanation offered in the first paragraph (TOBs) completely disregarded in the 2nd?
This does suggest the next move – factor TOBs in those 881 stations and then subtract that from the homogenised result.
Of course, there are other factors mentioned, such as station moves. Extend the analysis, if possible, to account for all factors in the homogenization process.
barry…”In Fig. 5 we see that the 881 stations with no trend in urbanization during 1975-2014 have an average 0.011 C/decade warmer trend in the adjusted (homogenized) data than in the unadjusted data”.
***
Roy is a consummate professional and he tries to be scientifically diplomatic in pointing out apparent inconsistencies in the NOAA record. I have no such dipolmatic restrictions, I call a spade a spade. NOAA are blatant alarmists cheaters who fudge their data, eschewing thermometer readings for data corruption via climate model fudging.
What you wrote had nothing to do with what I wrote, but congratulations for creating an opportunity for yourself to summarily trash a scientific institution.
La Nina will not end until autumn in the southern hemisphere. Australia can expect more rain.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2023&month=02
SOI values for 12 Feb, 2023
Average SOI for last 30 days 12.32
Average SOI for last 90 days 14.09
A major snowstorm is developing in the eastern US.
https://weather.com/maps/currentusweather
Where are you getting that from? All I can see is some lake effect snow near Chicago and a low pressure system raining on Georgia and South Carolina.
Entropic man
Like Warmistas are fixated on warming details everywhere, Coolistas conversely only talk about cooling details.
Like here:
https://i.ibb.co/b5ft2W7/pole30-nh.png
Palmowski loves to show something looking extreme whenever it fits his personal Coolista narrative.
Stratospheric sudden warming indeed can reveal something extreme but not on a daily time scale when daily peaks are averaged away. You need more persistent behavior.
I downloaded the IGRA2 weather balloon data, selected the Arctic balloons between 60N and 90N, and generated their 30 hPa time series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d80KXuKmgtl4GNIlcwcR4t5iqCY8j6zT/view
That is how 30 hPa (i.e. lower stratosphere at 21 km altitude) looks in the Arctic…
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/china-warns-more-extreme-weather-2023-2023-02-06/
If only Chinese citizens could have the right to open carry.
They would be able to shoot at the skies.
Prediction, prediction, prediction, prediction.
More like a simple consequence of basic facts to me, ren, but whatever:
https://climateball.net/but-predictions/
Willard, please stop trolling.
ww…”China was hit last June by a heatwave that lasted more than 70 days…”
***
La Nina. It’s causing strange weather parts around the planet. Besides, prolonged weather events like heat waves have been common throughout the years. The 1930s in the US holds the record, by far, for heat waves in the US.
C’mon, Bordon.
“more persistent high temperatures”
Try to keep up.
Willard, please stop trolling.
There will be more snow in Appalachian.
https://i.ibb.co/jGSjYFP/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-12-175930.png
The PoNo Principle:
(H/T Binny)
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/02/12/the-pono-principle/
Yeah.
I don’t get your point because the referenced article is poorly written and fails to establish a point. He references a paper by ‘Hans’ which is equally poorly written.
A basic tenet in writing (essays) is to state your point (thesis statement) clearly then to develop it in ensuing paragraphs. The article at your link and the paper by Hans {Storch] are rambling efforts lacking clarity.
A lot like your writing wee willy…rambling, incoherent.
C’mon, Bordon.
Of course you don’t get the point.
You never do.
Here’s a pro-tip –
Read the title.
Cheers.
Wistful Wee Willy,
You wrote “Here’s a pro tip . . . ”
Is that your usual veiled reference to homosexual prostitution, or are you trying to convince others that you are a “professional” something-or-other?
Obviously not a professional communicator, if you are implying that a reader must be stupid if he does not appreciate your rambling, incoherent article.
Are you implying you are a professional SkyDragon? Who would be deranged enough to pay a fool like you to talk rubbish? Nobody, that’s who!
Keep handing out “tips”, “offers”, “challenges”, that nobody seems to be interested in. Keep posting the same link to an irrelevant videos that nobody bothers watching.
Maybe you need to pay people to take notice. How much are you offering to click on a link?
Probably not nearly enough!
Peabrain.
Mike Flynn,
“Pro-tip”:
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/pro-tip
Your sammich:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Wistful Wee Willy,
You wrote “Heres a pro tip . . . ”
Is that your usual veiled reference to homosexual prostitution, or are you trying to convince others that you are a “professional” something-or-other?
Obviously not a professional communicator, if you are implying that a reader must be stupid if he does not appreciate your rambling, incoherent article.
Are you implying you are a professional SkyDragon? Who would be deranged enough to pay a fool like you to talk rubbish? Nobody, thats who!
Keep handing out “tips”, “offers”, “challenges”, that nobody seems to be interested in. Keep posting the same link to an irrelevant videos that nobody bothers watching.
Maybe you need to pay people to take notice. How much are you offering to click on a link?
Probably not nearly enough!
Peabrain.
Mike Flynn,
Repeating your comment won’t change anything.
“Pro-tip” is a fairly common word:
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/pro-tip
Your sammich has been served:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Please do not touch the furniture on your way out.
Wistful Wee Willy,
You wrote “Here’s a pro tip . . .
Is that your usual veil ed reference to homosexual prostitution, or are you trying to convince others that you are a “professional” something-or-other?
Obviously not a professional communicator, if you are implying that a reader must be stupid if he does not appreciate your rambling, incoherent article.
Are you implying you are a professional SkyDragon? Who would be deranged enough to pay a fool like you to talk rubbish? Nobody, thats who!
Keep handing out “tips”, “offers”, “challenges”, that nobody seems to be interested in. Keep posting the same link to an irrelevant videos that nobody bothers watching.
Maybe you need to pay people to take notice. How much are you offering to click on a link?
Probably not nearly enough!
Peabrain.
Hey, Mike –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Copy-paste your comment again.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ent, “egrarious” isn’t even a word. Perhaps you meant ‘egregious’ which occurs exactly once and appropriately in describing actions of the EPA.
Always a terrible speller!
Ent, When someone says something like "a considerable number of errors, too many to usefully discuss here" it often means that they actually didn’t find any errors or that they thought there was an error because the document disagreed with their perception. Identify at least one error so I can fix it.
Let’s try your egregious EPA. I take it that you are using the term in the sense of outstandingly bad, rather than outstandingly good.
The EPA calculation overlooks the very real phenomenon of thermalization. Trace ghg (all ghg except water vapor) have little if any effect on climate because absorbed energy is immediately thermalized which allows the energy to be redirected to water vapor [51]. Thermalization is a key factor in understanding the radiant energy flow by which CO2 and other ghg except water vapor (WV) have little if any net effect on climate.
The EPA calculation of the GWP of a ghg also erroneously overlooks the fact that any added outgoing radiation cooling from the increased temperature the ghg might have produced is also integrated over the lifetime of the gas in the atmosphere so the duration in the atmosphere cancels out. Therefore GWP, as calculated by the EPA, egregiously overestimates the influence on average global temperature of noncondensing greenhouse gases. The influence (forcing) of a ghg cannot be more than determined by its immediate concentration. ”
Firstly there is no need to integrate over the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.You can calculate the change in equilibrium temperature independent of time.
Secondly all GHGs including water vapour transfer energy by thermalisation to the atmosphere. Energy also transfers from the atmosphere to the GHGs, which provides part of the energy they radiate to space. Thermalisation is temporary, not a permanent diversion of energy away from the outward flow.
You’re as egregious as Gordon Robertson who claims that energy carried to the tropopause somehow “dissipates” and disappears from the energy budget without radiating to space.
ent….”Youre as egregious as Gordon Robertson who claims that energy carried to the tropopause somehow dissipates and disappears from the energy budget without radiating to space”.
***
To understand what I’m talking about you first need to understand what heat is. Although Clint and others disagree, I still regard heat as the kinetic energy of atoms, as described by the likes of Clausius and Tyndall. Tyndall referred to heat as a mode of motion, as did Planck, and that can only mean kinetic energy since it is the only mode of motion of energy.
I realize this is a vague definition because no energy has every been identified. Energy is often passed of as the ability to do work but no one to date has defined what that ability may be. Therefore, when we refer to kinetic energy we are talking about an unknown in motion. We cam measure the motion but no one can identify what causes it.
We call that unknown ‘energy’.
Problem is, there are several types of the unknown defined, like mechanical, chemical, electrical, electromagnetic, nuclear, gravitational, etc. Each type of energy has distinctly different properties than the other. Therefore, the word kinetic refers to any one of those forms of energy in motion. That is, using the word kinetic energy by itself, or internal energy, is meaningless unless the type of energy is specified.
All the word kinetic energy means is that some kind of energy is in motion. We have used the word thermal to define energy motion related to atoms and that applies to motion within an atom or the atomic motion externally.
Though atomic motion in solids is normally isolated to individual atoms vibrating in a lattice structure, it can also be a reference to electrons inside the atomic structure moving in their orbits or changing orbital energy levels. In gases and liquids, however, the atoms are free to move around as individual atoms or as aggregates of atoms we call molecules.
Whether the motion is within an atom as electron motion, or the vibrations of an atom in a solid lattice, or atoms moving freely in a gas or liquid, the motion is referred to as thermal energy. Heat is a word we have appointed to represent any kind of thermal energy.
Therefore, the amount of thermal energy, or heat, in a gas depends on the number of atoms/molecules moving within a certain space. If you had an adiabatic container that prevented any heat loss and you had a gas at a particular pressure and temperature, the gas would have a temperature proportional to the gas pressure. If you slowly bled off the pressure, the temperature would drop in proportion.
If you could bleed off the pressure so there were no more atoms/molecules left in the container, theoretically you should reach 0 degrees absolute. That won’t happen in a terrestrial environment for the simple reason that we cannot prevent heat entering the container. The minimum temperature we will likely reach is the temperature of the environment in which the container resides.
Our space on Earth with our atmosphere resides in a container with an average temperature of about +4K (absolute). Even though there are bazillions of stars with very hot temperatures, the radiation the stars emit cannot warm a near emp.ty space between them.
It is plain that temperature varies with the number of air molecules at a specific altitude. Therefore, as air rises with altitude, and the number of atoms thins out, the temperature drops normally. That means heat dissipates with altitude in a natural manner. No conversion to another form of energy required.
“That means heat dissipates with altitude in a natural manner. No conversion to another form of energy required. ”
LOT violation alert.
You seem to have no concept of an energy budget.
Sunlight enters the Earth’s atmosphere from space as shortwave radiation. Since days are warmer than nights it clearly raises the temperature of the Earth’s surface.
An equivalent quantity of infrared radiation leaves the Earth. Since nights cool, this infrared radiation is probably the cause.
The quantity of sunlight and infrared radiation balance, keeping the temperature liveable.
Please explain how this all happens according to your physics.
Ent,
How does the Moon lose its heat?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
Due to absorbing and reradiating GHGs only radiation emitted through the atmospheric window between 800 and 1300 reaches space directly from the Earth’s surface. The rest of the surface radiation is absor*bed by the atmosphere and ultimately emitted at the tropopause by GHGs.
On the Moon there is no atmosphere so all emitted surface radiation goes directly to space.
Sorry, poor phrasing. Before some one complains:-
Outside the atmospheric window GHGs reduce the proportion of surface radiation reaching space directly. Except for a few saturated wavelengths the atmosphere is not completely opaque to surface longwave radiation.
What percentage of the Earth’s heat is lost directly from the surface to space?
You should have no trouble answering that yourself.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
The useful thing about wavenumber graphs is that equal areas represent equal energy.
The black line is actual OLR, 240 W/m^2. The red line is total surface radiation flux. The area of the white area between the red and black lines is the amount of flux absorbed and reradiated upwards ordownwards by GHGs.
The amount of direct surface radiation to space will be 240- half the flux represented by the white area.
Get out your printer and graph paper. I look forward to your answer when I come back from shopping.
I asked you first.
Think how much more confidence you would have in an answer you worked out for yourself.
I did the exercise myself once and got about 20% or 48W/m^2.
The “official” figure is 40 W/m^2 direct from the surface and 196W/m^2 of thermal emission from the atmosphere That would make surface emissions direct to space about 17% of the total.
Someone intelligent like Folkert will go, “the system is too complex, and we have a long way to go to understanding it.” Someone like you will have the cluelessness to believe that you know.
EM,
You wrote –
“Since nights cool, this infrared radiation is probably the cause.” You jest, I presume.
Probably? Are you really so ignorant that you say “probably”?
The temperature, whether at night, or over the past four and a half billion years, drops because the surface s emitting is losing more energy that it is receiving.
Your ignorance is astounding. You apparently believe in a GHE which you cannot describe, yet you admit you know so little of physics that you cannot even explain how the Earth cools over time.
No GHE.
EM,
Your comment no doubt explains how and why the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years, GHE, CO2, water vapour and all.
Do you accept reality?
I doubt it, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Mike Flynn,
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You have posted that irrelevance less than 20 times.
Keep posting, I’ll keep not clicking. Let me know when you get to 50.
[sniggers at dimwitted SkyDragon whipping moribund equine.]
Mike Flynn,
You have asked for that silly sammich for more than ten years, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/#comment-70570
So here it is again:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Live well and prosper.
W
Woeful Wee Willy,
You have posted that irrelevance less than 20 times.
Keep posting, Ill keep not clicking. Let me know when you get to 50.
[sniggers at dimwitted SkyDragon whipping moribund equine.]
Mike Flynn,
Are you suggesting that you’re requesting an irrelevant sammich?
You just have to read the title:
Wee Willy Idiot,
You wrote –
“You just have to read the title”
No, I don’t – and there is nothing you can do about it, you idiot.
:
Mike Flynn,
You just have to read the title:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
But you won’t for you’re the saddest of red clowns.
Do as you please.
Wee Willy Idiot,
You wrote
“You just have to read the title”
No, I dont and there is nothing you can do about it, you idiot.
I’m sure if it was anything relevant or useful, someone would be sure to tell me what it was.
You are right, I do as I please, when I please, and how I please. You are in some sort of bizarre alternate reality if you think I need your permission to do anything!
If you are just trying to demonstrate how incompetent and impotent you are, you are doing a fine job.
Keep at it.
Swenson, Willard
Could you two get a room. Your constant bickering is getting in the way of more productive discussion.
Entropic man
100% agreed.
Right now, 343 posts with 96 Flynnson and 93 Willard…
If it continues that way, I’ll install WizGeek’s post filter idea.
If Mike Flynn keeps biting my ankles, I will continue to kick him.
He needs to learn to PST earlier.
Wee Willy Idiot,
You wrote
“You just have to read the title”
No, I don’t and there is nothing you can do about it, you idiot.
I’m sure if it was anything relevant or useful, someone would be sure to tell me what it was.
You are right, I do as I please, when I please, and how I please. You are in some sort of bizarre alternate reality if you think I need your permission to do anything!
If you are just trying to demonstrate how incompetent and impotent you are, you are doing a fine job.
Keep at it.
Mike, Mike,
Nobody forces you to educamate yourself:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
In this case, “have to” isn’t a command like “you have to come home after work” like your spouse must remind you when you are not on a sabbatical.
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
Good boy.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ent,
Thanks for the comments. I recognize that it is my responsibility to not be ambiguous or misleading in what I write.
You: “Firstly there is no need to integrate over the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.” I agree with you but EPA integrates over resident time to determine GWP. My comment responds to this aspect of EPA assessment.
You: “You can calculate the change in equilibrium temperature independent of time.” That’s what I mean with “The influence (forcing) of a ghg cannot be more than determined by its immediate concentration.”
You: “all GHGs including water vapour transfer energy by thermalisation to the atmosphere. Energy also transfers from the atmosphere to the GHGs, which provides part of the energy they radiate to space.”
I agree by stating “The energy in all absorbed photons is thermalized” in Sect 4. Also, see Ref 51. Where is there anything that suggests otherwise? I invent the expression ‘reverse thermalization’ for when the energy is conducted from non-ghg to ghg to replenish the energy radiated to space by water vapor, especially from around 2-6 km and by CO2 and other non-condensing ghg, mostly at the tropopause and above.
You: Thermalisation is temporary, not a permanent diversion of energy away from the outward flow.” Thermalization is a process, not a state. Valid physics is assumed, i.e. the first law of thermodynamics is not violated. I see in the introduction that thermodynamics is needed but the only place I explicitly state the first law is in Sect 17. Where is it implied that the first law is violated?
SOI values for 13 Feb, 2023
Average SOI for last 30 days 13.09
Average SOI for last 90 days 14.07
Incidentally, have you considered the implications of your hypothesis for the energy budget. It means that all emissions in the OLR must come from the surface through the atmospheric window or from water vapour.
Can you demonstrate this?
Sorry, that’s for you, Dan. It didn’t take as a reply.
It certainly disagrees with the OLR curve, which would not show the notch at 700 if you were correct.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
Ent, The words below explain.
What atmospheric windows? Is it open or closed, or does it need washing? Can you throw a brick through it. If so, where can I find it?
Ent,
Not true. TOA graphs in Sect 5, especially Fig 1, show the OLR distribution. This paragraph explains how CO2 gets back into the act: “Water vapor is greatly reduced at higher altitudes (>~10 km), which allows some reverse-thermalization of the radiant flux back to CO2 at the wavenumber range 600-740. The TOA notch is about 12% less deep above 50 km than it was at 20 km. The approximate 18 W/m2 (in Fig 1) which is not reverse-thermalized back to the notch explains the reduced flux at the notch.”
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01576-2
Also here: https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1419087/v1/fbbb1b6d-6952-45c4-a628-68be28184155.pdf?c=1675757270
I’m not surprised.
My own calculations based on the forcing equation suggest that the CO2 already released has committed us to 1.5C in fifteen years and 1.7C in 25 years.
15 – 1.5 = 13.5 and 15 – 1.7 = 13.3 C
If Earth had remained at 13.5 to 13.3 how much advancement in global glaciers would we have had by 2020 AD?
And how much lower would sea levels be?
I think 15 C air temperature is cold.
And I think hottest place ever recorded with highest temperature would set more records after 1920s.
Physicist David Bohm once claimed that an equation with no reality to back it is garbage. The forcing equation is garbage.
EM,
Does your forcing calculation reflect the past four and a half billion years of planetary cooling?
Or the cooling of Antarctica, forming kilometers high ice?
I doubt it, so feel free to assuage my doubts with details of your forcing calculation.
I’ll just sit and smile in the meantime.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
1. … and where is Moon’s data?
2. Contradiction:
” Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0.47 ”
versus
” cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean. ”
Is for a ‘Planet Ocean’ Φearth still = 0.47?
I’m 100% sure you should prove this assertion.
Bindidon:
“Im 100% sure you should prove this assertion.”
–
Well, we should distinguish the difference between the planet rotation about its local axis, and the planet sidereal rotation with reference to the fixed stars!
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Surely for your purpose all rotation should be relative to the Sun.
1. ” … the difference between the planet rotation about its local axis, and the planet sidereal rotation with reference to the fixed stars ”
*
Sorry: this is simply not correct, it makes no sense.
Earth’s rotation about its local axis has, like its orbit around the Sun, a period.
And the rotation period can be measured with respect to
– the Sun: 24 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds;
– distant stars e.g. in our Milky Way: 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
*
2. You still did not give us a proof for
” Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0.47 ”
versus
” cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean. ”
*
You still did not give us a proof that for a ‘Planet Ocean’, Φearth still keeps the = 0.47 value you infact have dedicated above to a ‘smooth rocky planet’.
*
How can your Φ have the same value for a smooth rocky planet and for a planet with 70 % water?
Binny,
You wrote –
“How can your Φ have the same value for a smooth rocky planet and for a planet with 70 % water?”
Sounds like a gotcha. Why do you believe his statement is wrong, or are you just trying to make someone look stupid?
Bindidon:
“How can your Φ have the same value for a smooth rocky planet and for a planet with 70 % water?”
–
***
The key words here are the smooth planet.
By the word “rocky” we differentiate the not gasses planets from the gasses planets. A water planet is not necessarily a gasses planet.
Earth’s atmosphere is a very thin and a very transparent to radiation both ways (in and out) atmosphere to be considered as gasses planet.
Thus for planet Earth the Φ = 0,47 !
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
#4
Haaah, the dumb Flynnson stalker is blathering again.
Lacking as usual anything relevant to say, he is saying something irrelevant.
Carry on, Flynnson, carry on.
And trying to find other victims of your egomaniacal junk would be a serious win.
” The key words here are the smooth planet.
By the word rocky we differentiate the not gasses planets from the gasses planets. ”
Sorry, not very convincing, too ‘ad hoc’ sort of.
1. ” Also Earth orbits Sun with a period of 265,2524 hours. ”
Sure sure? I corrected.
*
2. ” The ratio of Earths rotation with reference to the fixed stars (Sun included) … ”
What does that mean? Is the Sun now suddenly a ‘fixed star’?
*
3. ” … is the sum of two rotational ratios:
1). The Earths diurnal cycles ratio, and
2). The Earths orbital cycles ratio.
When summarized, those two ratios give the exact number of Earths sidereal rotation ratio !”
What does that have to do with the difference between synodic and sidereal periods? Nothing.
To give you an example:
https://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/astronomy-pc/synodic-sidereal-periods-planets/
Some more info
https://in-the-sky.org/article.php?term=synodic_period
https://in-the-sky.org/article.php?term=sidereal_time
*
Your numbers are evident, but their meaning has nothing to do with my question.
Bindidon:
”
1. the difference between the planet rotation about its local axis, and the planet sidereal rotation with reference to the fixed stars
*
Sorry: this is simply not correct, it makes no sense.
Sorry: this is simply not correct, it makes no sense.
Earths rotation about its local axis has, like its orbit around the Sun, a period.
And the rotation period can be measured with respect to
the Sun: 24 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds;
distant stars e.g. in our Milky Way: 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds.”
–
***
Also Earth orbits Sun with a period of 265,25×24 hours.
–
Let’s see now:
1 /24 hours = 1 /23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds + 1 /265,25×24 hours !
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CORRECTION:
–
The
“1 /24 hours = 1 /23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds + 1 /265,2524 hours !”
–
Should be read:
1 /23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds = 1 /24 hours + 1 /265,2524 hours !
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
1 /23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds = 1 /24 hours +
+ 1 /265,25 x 24 hours !
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What exactly do you claim with these numbers?
“What exactly do you claim with these numbers?”
The ratio of Earth’s rotation with reference to the fixed stars (Sun included) is the sum of two rotational ratios:
1). The Earth’s diurnal cycle’s ratio, and
2). The Earth’s orbital cycle’s ratio.
When summarized, those two ratios give the exact number of Earth’s sidereal rotation ratio !
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bindidon says:
February 14, 2023 at 2:27 PM
1. Also Earth orbits Sun with a period of 265,2524 hours.
Sure sure? I corrected.
*
2. The ratio of Earths rotation with reference to the fixed stars (Sun included)
What does that mean? Is the Sun now suddenly a fixed star?
*
3. is the sum of two rotational ratios:
1). The Earths diurnal cycles ratio, and
2). The Earths orbital cycles ratio.
When summarized, those two ratios give the exact number of Earths sidereal rotation ratio !
What does that have to do with the difference between synodic and sidereal periods? Nothing.
To give you an example:
https://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/astronomy-pc/synodic-sidereal-periods-planets/
Some more info
https://in-the-sky.org/article.php?term=synodic_period
https://in-the-sky.org/article.php?term=sidereal_time
*
Your numbers are evident, but their meaning has nothing to do with my question.
–
–
*****
Please, Bindidon, is the following the question you asked?:
“What does that have to do with the difference between synodic and sidereal periods? Nothing.
I have a silly idea.
A balloon carrying a modified mobile phone would be about the size of the objects recently shot down in Alaska, Canada and the Great Lakes.
Why not launch dozens of them in international waters from small boats and let them drift across the US monitoring the 2.4GHz band and taking photos at preprogrammed GPS coordinates if they drift near something interesting. They could report back at intervals using the US cell phone network.
You might also release hundreds of cheap decoys so the USAF would not know which ones to shoot down.
EM,
If you go to a site like tracker.sondehub.org, you can track a veritable forest of balloons, both government, commercial and amateur. At present, there are at least two amateur sonde balloons transmitting data over the continental US.
There are large numbers of amateur high altitude balloons in the air at any time around the world.
As to commercial high altitude balloons, a Google Loon balloon stayed aloft for over 200 days. Balloons like this can hit 400 kph ground speed in a jet stream. Some HABs have been known to circumnavigate the globe several times.
In the US, using mobiles attached to a balloon is a no-no. The FAA states –
“Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off.”
However, GPS trackers, cameras, receivers and transmitters are fine in general. Some of the photos are truly spectacular.
Hopefully, the USAF doesn’t shoot them all down because they don’t know how to recognise a meteorological balloon (or similar large round thing at altitude moving with the wind, generally with something dangling from it on a bit of string). Super pressure balloons may have solar panels to provide power, hoping to stay aloft for a year or so, tracking the winds, etc. The USAF is apparently terrified of these – I don’t know why, although one military spokesman said they might be alien artifacts.
Scary.
Like the Chicoms care about US laws.
IMO the last three objects shot down were Chicom knockoffs of Macys parade style balloons and they are laughing at us.
Dan,
You could be right. The US is apparently still claiming they don’t know the difference between a balloon and an alien space ship.
The attempt to shoot the first balloon may have needed two Sidewinder missiles – at approx $400,000 USD each. The USAF is now trying to figure out a cheaper way of shooting down UFOs. Ordinary 600 gm weather balloons (burst height >100,000 ft) retail about $70, plus gas to fill them. Seems a bit of a waste to spend $400,000 or more to shoot down a balloon which is to going to fall to Earth all by itself.
Oh well, they might be shooting down alien space ships – who knows?
Back in 1956, the US launched more than 500 high altitude balloons equipped with cameras to spy on the Soviet Union – recovering 54 of them. Ironically, a recent news report had a US military spokesman saying that the US was rapidly going to investigate designing and launching its own HABs to counter the Chinese ones!
You wouldn’t believe it if you didn’t see it! I’d call it a farce, which is kinder than calling the whole saga a stunning display of ignorance, stupidity, and incompetence!
Oh well, onwards and upwards.
ent…” Sunlight enters the Earths atmosphere from space as shortwave radiation. Since days are warmer than nights it clearly raises the temperature of the Earths surface.
An equivalent quantity of infrared radiation leaves the Earth. Since nights cool, this infrared radiation is probably the cause.
The quantity of sunlight and infrared radiation balance, keeping the temperature liveable”.
***
So much for Climate Alarm 101.
Obviously, there is less energy leaving than there is coming in. Otherwise, the planet would be a lot colder. The question is, how much?
You can’t understand my point about heat simply disappearing because you can’t follow my explanation of what it is and how it can dissipate by reducing the number of molecules.
The main point is that we are located at an ideal distance from the Sun, we have an atmosphere and oceans, and our planet turns at an ideal rate. Those parameters enable us to store heat as energy and that keep the planet a lot warmer than it would be without storage.
Because we have a fairly dense atmosphere, with an ideal gravity and a negative pressure gradient, it can dissipate heat naturally through expansion. Heat is an energy that can be dissipated simply by reducing the number of molecules. I don’t know why you have so much trouble with that.
Heat wrt to air is the KE of the air molecules. As they rise, they lose KE naturally as more dense air expands into leas dense air.
I am not suggesting that all incoming solar is lost that way, I am only suggesting that because we lose heat internally in the atmosphere and oceans, we don’t need to radiate a whole lot back to space. Therefore, the planet warms.
Put another way, if we relied only on radiation from GHGs to cool the planet it would be far too hot to live on Earth.
I asked you earlier for a budget. How much sunlight reaches the Earth. How it moves around the Earth after it arrives and how it leaves, indicating how it changes between different forms and preferably with numbers.
All you’ve given me so far is arm waving.
EM,
Here’s what Baron Fourier said, a couple of hundred years ago –
“Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”
In other words, the Earth is slowly cooling.
There is no GHE. Thermometers respond to heat, and eight billion humans produce a lot more than a billion, a century ago. Thermometers reflect this increased heat – as increased temperatures, particularly nighttime minima.
Talking about sunlight moving around the Earth is just silly. Just place a thermometer outside, watch it heat up during the day, cool down at night. Put it in a sealed greenhouse with 100% CO2 if you like. It still heats up during the day, and cools at night. Just as Baron Fourier said.
Accept reality if you dare..
ent…”I asked you earlier for a budget. How much sunlight reaches the Earth. How it moves around the Earth after it arrives and how it leaves, indicating how it changes between different forms and preferably with numbers”.
***
If I had an answer to that I’d be up for a Nobel. Unfortunately, there are imposters like Kiehle-Trenberth who think they have the answer but are not even close.
WRT to arm-waving, all I am try to do is identify one means of cooling that does not require radiation to space. I am in no way trying to explain a so-called heat-budget and I am certainly not claiming that what I describe accounts for a magical means of heat dissipation that negates radiation.
I do, however, seriously question the notion that trace gases in the atmosphere are responsible for warming the atmosphere and the surface and/or responsible for all heat dissipation. That is a nutty theory.
” Put another way, if we relied only on radiation from GHGs to cool the planet it would be far too hot to live on Earth. ”
Typical, absolute nonsense from ignoramus^3 Robertson.
This is so incredibly dumb.
Our planet EXCLUSIVELY cools by radiation ‘moving’ through the ‘atmospheric window’ (wave lengths between 7.5 and 12.5 µ) directly from the surface to outer space.
No gas molecules currently intercept radiation within that window; otherwise, we wouldn’t be here.
binny…”Our planet EXCLUSIVELY cools by radiation moving through the atmospheric window (wave lengths between 7.5 and 12.5 ) directly from the surface to outer space”.
***
Now Binny has an atmosphere with windows. He started with an atmosphere made of glass, like a greenhouse, that can trap heat. Now he has windows in the greenhouse. What next, a door and a porch?
” Heat is an energy that can be dissipated simply by reducing the number of molecules. ”
When you reduce the number of molecules where do the rest of them go?
And where does the heat they carry go?
ent…where does the heat go? Try to set aside this notion that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It’s a smug statement that is far too general in nature.
If you have a car with a velocity of 30 mph, and you slow it to a stop, you can ask that question. The momentum is converted to heat in the brakes through friction.
That’s not how air works. When two parcels of air collide, is their friction between them?
You are not trying to stop a 3000 lb car with considerable momentum. You are merely trying to get air molecules to slow down or to expand so their average kinetic energy is lowered.
Heat is the kinetic energy of molecules. Reduce the number of molecules, you reduce the KE, and you reduce the heat. With a moving vehicle, you need to apply the brakes but in the atmosphere, heated air rises naturally into cooler and less dense air. As one gets higher in altitude air becomes less dense.
Something causes heated air molecules to zip around rapidly. KE = 1/2 mv^2. The KE is in the velocity. As heated air rises is expands into the cooler air naturally.
You claimed earlier that such expansion requires work but work is a force applied over a distance and it normally means something else is required to move. When hotter air expands into cooler and thinner air, what is there to move. What work is done?
As I pointed out before, if you have a mass of air acting on a solid surface, then work can be done. But how does a mass of air do work on another mass of air?
“Try to set aside this notion that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.”
Oh dear!
ent…”And where does the heat they carry go?”
***
The molecules are not carrying heat per se, heat is the kinetic energy of their motion. You cannot separate the two for the simple reason we have no idea what energy is.
We do know there is no heat without atoms/molecules and we do know that the faster they move the more heat is available.
Let’s talk in your language for a minute.
“Adenosine 5′-triphosphate, abbreviated ATP and usually expressed without the 5′-, is an important energy molecule found in all life forms”.
What dos that mean…’energy molecule’? When ATP is expressed in a muscle, what does that mean? Can you identify the energy and what it is?
That’s about all you can say about heat. Reduce the motion, or the number of molecules, and you reduce the average KE, hence the heat.
I suppose you can call ATP ‘chemical energy’. In the same way, you call the energy associated with atomic/molecular motion ‘heat’. It’s just a name for something we cannot explain.
Heat, measured by temperature,is related to pressure in a container. Increase the number of atoms of a gas, and/or increase their velocity, and the pressure rises. That’s why temperature (measure of heat) and pressure are inter-dependent, hence a basis of the Ideal gas Law.
I regard volume as being important but incidental. It’s the molecules/atoms of a gas that determine the pressure and temperature. For a given volume, the pressure and temperature are determined by the number of atom/molecules and their velocities. Therefore, reducing the number of molecules/atoms of a gas in a constant volume will reduce both pressure and temperature of the gas.
I can see why you are in biology.
There are fewer molecules per unit volume as one rises in the atmosphere. Hot air rises…right? As it rises it rises into areas with fewer molecules and it thins out, meaning the air has fewer molecules per unit volume.
By the elevation of the peak of Everest, at about 8000 metres, the air is 1/3 thinner than at sea level. That means 1/3rd the number of air molecules than at sea level.
Humans cannot live above 8000 metres for more than a week or so, without supplemental oxygen, because there is simply not enough natural oxygen to survive.
Even with supplemental oxygen, people can suffers from high altitude cerebral and pulmonary edema simply because the air pressure is too low.
If heated air from the surface manages to reach the altitude of Everest’s peak, there will be 1/3rd less molecules available. That reduction of the number of molecules by 1/3rd translates to a loss of heat.
As an aside, Rheinhold Messner, a world class climber, was the first to solo Everest. He showed up two months in advance to work out near 18,000 feet to acclimatize and even then the climb nearly destroyed him. He was so exhausted after the descent that he became emotionally undone. Several people have died on Everest from exhaustion alone. They simply sit down and die.
There are idiots today who show up at Everest base camp at 18,000 feet and try to reach the summit within a couple of weeks. When some of them die, as they do each season, it is blamed on the mountain, not the idiots who tried to climb it totally unprepared and led by other idiots.
Gordon,
Messner’s achievement was all the more remarkable in that he did his solo ascent without supplemental oxygen. The experts all agreed he was lying, as they “knew” that such a feat was impossible.
The “experts” were wrong in this instance. A couple of hundred climbers have managed to summit without supplemental oxygen since.
“There are fewer molecules per unit volume as one rises in the atmosphere. Hot air risesright? As it rises it rises into areas with fewer molecules and it thins out, meaning the air has fewer molecules per unit volume. ”
PV=nRT
We are applying the Ideal Gas Law differently.
PV/T=nR
The total heat content of a mass of gas is the average kinetic energy of the molecules multiplied by the number of molecules n plus a certain amount of energy stored in molecular interactions (The Joule-Thompson effect, which we’ll ignore for now).
E=1.5 nRT
You should not be using volume as you base unit for describing convection, you should be using mass or n.
Consider convection using your model.
A supermarket car park warms the air above it by conduction and radiation. A parcel of air weighing 50,000 tonnes with a volume of 40 million cubic metres expands as it warms, becomes buoyant and rises by convection.
This parcel carries X joules of heat.
As it rises the pressure drops fivefold. When the parcel of air reaches the tropopause the original 40 million cubic metres volume contains 1/5 of the original mass, 10,000 tonnes, and X/5 Joules of heat. 80% of the heat has dissipated!
Perhaps you see the flaw. 80% of the original mass and 80% of the heat are unaccounted for.
Now consider the same convection using my model.
A supermarket car park warms the air above it by conduction and radiation. A parcel of air weighing 50,000 tonnes with a volume of 40 million cubic metres expands as it warms, becomes buoyant and rises by convection.
This parcel carries X joules of heat.
As it rises the pressure drops fivefold and the volume increases fivefold. When the parcel of air reaches the tropopause the original 40 million cubic metres volume has become 200 million cubic metres. This contains all the original mass and all the original heat. None of the heat has dissipated!
Using my model all the mass and all the heat are accounted for.
I’d appreciate it if we discussed this first, before considering the temperature change.
To properly consider the temperature change we would need to recognise that “Temperature is the average kinetic energy of the molecules” is a simplification of the actual physics and better discussed seperately.
Ireneusz Palmowski seems to have fallen down on the job…
Thanks for the memory.
ren is not predicting catastrophic climate change like you, he is updating us on the current weather. Those living in glass houses should not cast stones.
The low surface temperature of the tropical Pacific. Cold water reaches the tropics from the north, thanks to the eastward circulation on the North Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/ccyTMD5/cdas-sflux-ssta-global-1.png
Current Nino3+4 situation wrt SST:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
*
What about the current Nino31+2 situation wrt SST:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
leading to this
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/images3/nino12Monadj.gif
and this
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Wait and see.
“Wait and see.”
Indeed.
Thanks for the wait and see predictions
Making predictions is easy – getting them to become reality is more difficult.
Particularly if the future is involved.
Even the IPCC admit, grudgingly, that predicting the future state of the atmosphere is impossible. That includes weather, climate, wind speed and direction 10 seconds from now.
A rare moment of reality acceptance from the climate clowns at the IPCC.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Our planet EXCLUSIVELY cools by radiation moving through the atmospheric window (wave lengths between 7.5 and 12.5 ) directly from the surface to outer space.”
Well, no. The temperature drops at night – all radiation is leaving the surface – electrons are emitting photons at IR wavelengths. All matter above absolute zero emits IR.
How do you know the surface is emitting IR? It is cooling, and you cant see any visible light being emitted by the surface. It is infra-red. The mechanism is precisely the same for the surface of the Moon.
What happens to the radiation after it leaves the surface, depends on what is overlaying the surface – gas, water, bitumen . . . It doesn’t matter – all these emit IR in turn, and eventually all, I repeat all, of the radiation emitted by the surface flees to the depths of outer space – never to be seen again.
Hence, the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years, and night time.
Your hypothesis doesn’t seem to hold up when compared to reality.
Flynnson
” How do you know the surface is emitting IR? ”
You’re an ignoramus in the same vein as Robertson, maybe even a little dumber, which your blathering 5 o’clock tea English will never be able to disguise.
Your arrogance is afflicting, Flynnson.
” Your hypothesis doesnt seem to hold up when compared to reality. ”
Says a guy living in an own world, deliberately ignoring and discrediting anything relevant what has ever been written about what you ignore.
Binny,
Well, that was informative, wasn’t it? Only joking, you managed not to disagree with a single thing I said.
The surface emits IR, and cools as a result. In sunlight, it heats up up – absorbing more than it emits – in view of the fact that the Sun emits at around 5600 K, and by the time the radiation reaches the Earth, the intensity is around 1300 W/m2.
Maybe you could explain why the surface cools in the absence of sunlight?
Only joking – of course you can’t. No deranged SkyDragon cultist can. They can’t even describe the GHE – which allowed the planet to cool for four and a half billion years!
You could always complain that you think I’m arrogant for presenting inconvenient facts. Can you name anybody who actually cares what you think?
Carry on avoiding reality.
swenson…”All matter above absolute zero emits IR”.
***
I have been pondering this question for some time. What you claim is fundamentally understood although I would extend the statement beyond the IR spectrum.
What I am pondering is why the majority gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, are claimed not to be able to radiate energy at terrestrial temperatures. That makes no sense but I have gone along with it because I don’t have overwhelming proof of the opposite.
I have considered that the UAH satellites measure radiation from oxygen in the microwave spectrum. Such radiation has to mean the O2 is cooling. Therefore, if O2 is radiating in the microwave spectrum, N2 must be radiating somewhere in the EM spectrum.
Naturally, they won’t find either radiating because they are looking only in the IR spectrum.
Gordon,
Oxygen and nitrogen radiate IR at all temperatures above absolute zero, wavelength proportional to temperature. Air temperatures are routinely measured around the world, and nobody cares about how much CO2 is in the sample – because it makes precisely no difference to the temperature!
For example, Professor John Tyndall went to great lengths to ensure that he removed all traces of CO2, H2O, and particulate matter from air samples in his meticulous experiments to determine the ability of various gases to absorb and emit various wavelengths of radiation at various pressures.
Try it yourself. Measure the temperature of the air in a fishbowl. Generate some CO2, let it stabilise to ambient temperature, carefully pour it into the fishbowl, displacing the air, and watch the temperature change not at all.
Hot air balloons contain mainly CO2 and H2O gas (propane combustion products), and descend anyway – once the gases cool to outside temperature, reduce in density, losing their lifting power.
No magic necessary – just basic high school physics.
We measure spectrum of gases in other worlds- that’s how we know
how much O2 and N2 are in Mars and Venus atmospheres.
gb…you have to be careful with the word ‘spectrum’. It is not a continuous spectrum being measured but discrete lines representing individual frequencies.
That’s how you can tell which gas is being detected. Each one has a unique signature of lines (frequencies).
For example, here’s the ‘line’ spectrum for hydrogen and others.
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/lectures/bohrprob/spectra/
Yes, if parts of spectrum are missing, it suggest something absorbing it and radiating in random direction and chances are it’s not going in your direction that you are measuring it from.
Or try to figure out the various holes in the entire spectrum caused different properties of matter, which could include O2 or N2.
I don’t want to spoil the fun, but there is no debate about the basic science of greenhouse gases, the greenhouse effect, increasing CO2 due to fossil burning, forcing, or any of the other concepts leading to potential human impact on global warming and climate. The real question is the magnitude of those effects.
Because the effects on the real atmosphere are complicated by other effects such as convection and latent heat, and combined with the very strong, but not well defined ocean effects, the climate models need to be calibrated over time with actual measured data. They do not operate on simplified scientific assumptions. They are extremely complex.
That is the significance of the work that Dr. Spencer and others are doing to determine the true temperature of the earth over time. It is not a simple matter. It is noteworthy that the climate models do not predict climate itself, but only the predicted temperature in the future, based on assumed increases in greenhouse gases.
Tim S,
Consider your fun spoilt if you wish, but the Earth cooled for four and a half million years, and does so every night.
If you want to believe that this due to “greenhouse gases” or not due to “greenhouse gases” is up to you.
I’ll guarantee you can’t explain how “greenhouse gases” alter the temperature of the air at all – hotter or colder. Removing “greenhouse gases” from a sample of air changes the temperature not at all.
Are you a SkyDragon cultist perhaps? Some seem to believe a GHE warms the planet, but makes Antarctica colder, some believe it is responsible for four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, some believe that might and winter are colder due to a negative GHE!
All very confusing – what’s your particular fantasy?
tim s…”there is no debate about the basic science of greenhouse gases, the greenhouse effect…”
***
Au contraire. There is a major debate over how the GHE allegedly works. There is no debate that so-called greenhouse gases absorb and emit in the infrared spectrum, something Tyndall discovered in an elegant experiment circa 1850. The problem lies in the interpretation of what that means wrt the atmosphere.
GHE theory is based on a real greenhouse, namely that a real greenhouse warms because infrared emitted by plants and the infrastructure in a real greenhouse is trapped by the glass. No one has ever offered a scientific explanation for how trapped IR can raise the temperature of air in the greenhouse.
R. W. Wood, a world renowned expert on gases like CO2, stated circa 1909, that he could not see how CO2 could warm a greenhouse or the atmosphere. He hypothesized that it was not trapped IR warming the greenhouse but trapped molecules of air and that the real problem was a lack of convection. He proved that in a subsequent experiment.
There is a simple test for that, Remove all CO2 and WV from a greenhouse and see if it warms. I am willing to bet it will warm just as much as it did with the CO2 and WV.
It is ludicrous to think that trapped IR can warm anything. Where is the mechanism? What that theory is claiming, in essence, is that recycled IR can raise the temperature of a gas. Such a theory is an example of perpetual motion.
If Wood is correct, the glass in a greenhouse is trapping molecules of heated air that are trying to rise but can’t. There is nothing in the atmosphere can replicate that process, leading Joe Postma to offer that ‘we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do’.
A more recent theory claims that GHGs in the atmosphere serve to slow down the rate of heat dissipation at the surface. A moment’s reflection puts the boots to that theory as well. When heat is dissipated at the surface, infrared is produced, and it’s intensity and frequency are proportional to the number of quantum levels through which electrons in atoms of the emitting material dropped.
Since the heat is lost as the radiation is produced, something else obviously affected the rate of heat dissipation. That something is covered in Newton’s Law of Cooling which states essentially that the rate of heat dissipation of a surface is dependent on the temperature difference between the surface and its environment.
The environment wrt the surface is the entire atmosphere in contact with the surface. That atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen and only 0.04% CO2. The Ideal Gas Law makes it clear that the amount of heat contributed to a mixed gas by each gas is proportional to the mass concentration of each gas.
In essence, the GHE makes no scientific sense. Lindzen, an expert in atmospheric physics, agrees. His explanation for the warming associated with the GHE has nothing to do with greenhouses and about heat from the Tropics being distributed toward the Poles.
“R. W. Wood, a world renowned expert on gases like CO2, stated circa 1909, that he could not see how CO2 could warm a greenhouse or the atmosphere. He hypothesized that it was not trapped IR warming the greenhouse but trapped molecules of air and that the real problem was a lack of convection. He proved that in a subsequent experiment.”
We are too cold due to lack of convection???
gb,
You wrote – “We are too cold due to lack of convection???”
That sounds like a gotcha, but maybe I misunderstood you.
Wood pointed out, correctly, that “trapped” IR due to CO2 was nonsense. The temperature in a real greenhouse will drop to ambient by opening vents in the roof, and at the base of the walls.
As you know, suppressing convection in a solar pond results in elevated temperatures at the base of the column. No commercial success to date.
“That sounds like a gotcha, but maybe I misunderstood you.”
Well, I said many times, that global warming is “all about” causing
a more uniform global temperature.
It simply completely untrue to say global warming is about making Earth hotter.
And I think it’s a pretty good guess, to say the cargo cult of the global warming- is related to the planet Venus. And Venus surface is
very hot. Though at 1 atm pressure [which is at high elevation on Venus] is fairly hot- but it’s hot in daylight because it is closer
to the Sun, compared to Earth.
And cults are related to mysteries. And few people know why, the rocky surface of Venus is very, very hot. And it has nothing to do with Earth’s greenhouse effect.
So, I do think you misunderstand, me.
The whole discussion of how a greenhouse works is irrelevant to the climate debate.
A greenhouse causes the air and soil inside it to be warmer when the Sun shines than if there were no greenhouse. This is familiar to all.
By a different mechanism gases which absorb and reradiate IR cause the ocean, atmosphere and surface to be warmer than if there were no IR active gases.
Calling the latter the greenhouse effect is a middle school level analogy to make it easier to grasp the warming effect.
A better term would be “Outward Longwave Radiation reduction” but most people without college level radiation physics would just go “duh”.
Entropic says – A greenhouse causes the air and soil inside it to be warmer when the Sun shines than if there were no greenhouse. This is familiar to all. (you probably meant warmer for a 24 hour period)
Entropic, I worked in greenhouses and during the summer they are whitewashed and vented to prevent overheating. The reality was during the summer, it was cooler inside than in direct sunlight outside. Soil outside could reach over 100 degrees in the sun. In winter, oil fired boilers were needed to keep plants from freezing. It would have been nice if heat during the day was trapped, unfortunately that just was not the case.
The atmosphere reduces temperature during the day and reduces the cooling rate during the night. Depending on the composition of the atmosphere you can have a higher or lower daily average, because of the temperature curve for the day. But the only way you can have a higher maximum temperature you would have to remove ghg. We have a prime example in the moon. No atmosphere higher temp, faster cooling, overall lower daily average.
I rememember. Unwins’ greenhouses showed similar behaviour.
But again, the mechanism which warms the greenhouse and the mechanism by which “Outward Longwave Radiation reduction” warms the planet are different.
EM,
Billy Bob is right about soil temperatures being lower in a greenhouse in the sun.
When you wrote “A greenhouse causes the air and soil inside it to be warmer when the Sun shines than if there were no greenhouse. This is familiar to all.”, you meant familiar to all delusional SkyDragon cultists, not to anyone who accepts reality.
Trying to switch to “Outward Longwave Radiation reduction” just piles misdirection on wishful thinking. Impeding the rate at which radiation escapes to space by interposing some type of insulation, just slows the rate of cooling – resulting in “cooling”, a fact which seems to escape SkyDragon cultists.
You can’t describe the “greenhouse effect” in terms of greenhouses, insulation, or anything else, can you?
Accept reality – there is no “greenhouse effect”, there is no “Outward Longwave Radiation reduction” effect either.
Try another diversion.
ent moves the goalposts and claims…”A better term would be Outward Longwave Radiation reduction but most people without college level radiation physics would just go duh”.
***
Please explain how this outward longwave reduction affects the temperature of the atmosphere or the surface.
Very straightforward.
About 17% of the outward radiation from the surface is at wavelengths to which the atmosphere is transparent and radiates directly to space or is at wavelengths which are intercepted by IR active gases and reradiated in random directions.
Under stable conditions the planet absorbs shortwave radiation and radiates an equal about of energy to space as longwave radiation. The temperature stabilises when the total outgoing energy equals the total incoming energy.
When the quantity of infrared active gases increases a greater proportion of the outgoing is redirected back towards the surface. This reduces the outgoing radiation, so the Earth now emits less energy than comes in from the Sun. The surface temperature increases and increases the OLR. The temperature stabilises once the radiation balance is restored.
Entropic man, it is not “very straightforward” at all. Once again, there many different atmospheric and surface effects on temperature and climate. Greenhouse gases do not “control” the temperature of the atmosphere or the surface of the earth. The net effect of greenhouse gases can only be estimated. In the real atmosphere, there are effects from oceans with a massive heat capacity and an equally massive potential to produce water vapor. Think ENSO. That leads to weather systems with cloud formation and latent heat effects that are very significant. It is not clear at all, that any single effect acts on its own.
ent…” Under stable conditions the planet absorbs shortwave radiation and radiates an equal about of energy to space as longwave radiation. The temperature stabilises when the total outgoing energy equals the total incoming energy”.
***
That is not correct, the surface does not radiate an equal amount on a daily basis. The reason the planet is an alleged 33C warmer than a planet with no atmospheres or oceans is that the oceans and atmosphere on our planet retain most of the daily solar input for a period of time before releasing it. 33C of heat is a lot of retention.
I know you don’t understand my point about heat dissipating naturally without converting to another form of energy. I think the mantra that energy can neither be created not destroyed is a generalization with heat being a definite exception ‘in the atmosphere’. Heat can be dissipated simply by allowing a heated gas to dissipate into a less dense, cooler atmosphere.
Given that heat is defined as the kinetic energy associated with atoms/molecules, if the KE can be dissipated naturally, how would that be done? Since KE for a given mass is dependent entirely on the velocity of the atom/molecule, how would you reduce the velocity?
To answer that we need to know where it got its velocity. That’s a question I have been asking but it’s apparent once it gets it, maybe from gravity, it maintains it due to collisions with other atoms/molecules in a gas. That’s the key, remove the other atom/molecules, or reduce them, and the KE drops naturally. KE drops, heat drops.
Another way to look at it. How do you heat a gas? You introduce a hotter gas or you apply a heat source, like a flame to the gas container. Not a good idea with certain gases, or maybe any gas, because the container may explode. The point is, to heat a gas, or anything else, you need a source that has a higher level of average KE.
Why is it a danger? Applying heat to the gas in a container increases the KE of each atom/molecules, meaning they speed up, applying more force to the container walls.
It’s clear that to heat a gas or cool it, one must affect the velocity of the gas particles. When you raise or lower the velocity of the particles, you raise and lower the heat content.
It is equally clear that a gas at 15C at he surface will lose heat naturally as it rises into air at 0C or lower. The heat doesn’t have to go anywhere, or transform into another form of energy, all it has to do is thin out in a cooler gas.
***********
When the quantity of infrared active gases increases a greater proportion of the outgoing is redirected back towards the surface. This reduces the outgoing radiation, so the Earth now emits less energy than comes in from the Sun. The surface temperature increases and increases the OLR. The temperature stabilises once the radiation balance is restored.
***
How does back-radiated IR slow heat dissipation from the surface? That has never been explained by climate alarmists. Same for a real greenhouse, how does trapped IR warm the air in a greenhouse?
Newton’s Law of Cooling suggests the rate of heat dissipation at a surface is related to the temperature differential between the surface and its environment. Back-radiation is not related to temperature, which is a property of heat.
“I dont want to spoil the fun, but there is no debate about the basic science of greenhouse gases, the greenhouse effect, increasing CO2 due to fossil burning, forcing, or any of the other concepts leading to potential human impact on global warming and climate. The real question is the magnitude of those effects.”
Yes, no one can say how much warming is caused the higher CO2 levels.
Some say more than than 90% of all global warming warms our ocean which currently has average temperature of about 3.5 C.
And we have been measuring it for decades, and it hasn’t warmed by much.
Temperatures in the subsurface equatorial Pacific indicate that La Nina is far from over.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive/20230214.sub_surface_anom.png?popup
After the 25th of February, a cold winter will return to Europe for an extended period.
https://i.ibb.co/9y3Mq7m/hgt300-1.webp
Bookmarked.
ren…just heard from another source that we in the Vancouver, Canada area will be getting temperatures below -10C near end of February. Our only hope is that the Arctic vortex changes quickly.
I am sure the alarmists have this covered somewhere in their manifesto, that climates get colder due to warming.
The second stratospheric temperature surge this winter is already affecting temperatures in North America.
https://i.ibb.co/tbZs3bw/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-15-083902.png
I don’t think anyone has explained how our warmer Earth became so cold, they say when North and South America joined and cut off a connection to Atlantic and Pacific, that this was as a cooling
effect. And I suppose when India crashed in Asia, that was regarded as cooling effect. And I guess not just mountain building this caused but there also ocean between India and Asia which may have had significant warming effect.
And when was that?
https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html
So, it seems there was ocean between them 50 million years ago.
And when N and S America joined:
“The two continents are linked at Panama, but there has been a debate about when this land bridge first appeared, with most experts placing its formation at about 3 million years ago. The new study, published on Thursday in the journal Science, presents evidence that the Panama land bridge formed at least 10 million years earlier. Until then, a deep water channel called the Central American Seaway separated the continents.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/north-south-america-came-together-much-earlier-thought-study-n338826
So whether it was 3 or 10 million years ago, that would related
the cooling within our 33.9 million year Ice Age. And also got things like Greenland moving closer to north pole. Coupled with mountain building from India hitting Asia.
So in last 10 million, you have mountain building which could be cooling and 3 or 10 million closing off Pacific and Atlantic ocean
being cooling- I tend to closing off Altantic and Pacific was larger cooling effect. And 50 million years or more when ocean between India and Asia was large a very significant global warming effect.
Actual Pacific surface temperatures clearly show the effect of La Nina.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_global_1.png
More generally, whether or not you get an Ice Age (defined as permanent ice cover at both poles) depends on how much heat flows from the Tropics to the Poles.
When enough heat is carried to a pole by air movement or ocean currents permanent ice cover cannot form. Before Antarctica moved over the South Pole 30 million years ago the pole was kept ice free by relatively warm ocean currents. Once in place the reduced heat flow allowed an ice cap to form.
In the Arctic the movement of plates to surround the North Pole and the closure of the Bering Strait 3 million years ago cut off the flow of warm water across the Pole and allowed permanent sea ice to form.
As you mention, the Panama closure and the formation of the Tibetan plateau also reduced heat flow, though it’s harder to demonstrate.
“More generally, whether or not you get an Ice Age (defined as permanent ice cover at both poles) depends on how much heat flows from the Tropics to the Poles.”
Yes. Sort of generally. How much and how “heat flows from the Tropics to the Poles”
And “permanent ice cover” is called ice sheet or a permanent ice sheet.
But in terms of Planet Earth a Ice Age is also called an icehouse global climate.
Or Mars has what one could call a permanent ice sheet at each pole. You generally would not say Mars is in an Ice Age or an icehouse global climate. And Mars might have ice which is billion years old- which would be more of permanent thing [or our entire rocky ocean floor’s oldest rocks which are not much older than 200 million years].
Though we don’t know how old Mars ice at it’s poles or elsewhere is,
maybe Mars ice at it’s poles are less than 100 million years old.
And anyway oldest ice found on Earth is couple million years old.
whereas Antarctica “permanent” ice sheet is thought to be about 33.9 million years old.
“Ice Age” doesn’t have specific definition, whereas Icehouse global climate = Ice Age. Icehouse global climate is defined and is part of a category of Earth’s global climates.
Part of this category is what I would call a myth of a Snowball Earth or Slushball Earth. I would say it’s myth because it hasn’t proven to have happenned on Earth, but it defines what a Snowball/SlushBall Earth would be, if Earth had this global climate. And also defines
a global climate which the warmest global Climate- which is called a Greenhouse global climate.
A icehouse global climate has one [or more] permanent Ice sheet in a polar region. We currently have two. Antarctica ice sheet is oldest and Greenland’s ice sheet is about 3 million year old.
So if define Ice Age as two permanent ice sheet, that called Ice Age is about 3 million years old [and is ongoing] but in terms icehouse global climate it is 33.9 million years [and is ongoing].
Also ice house global climate is define as having a cold ocean.
If our ocean was 10 C rather than about 3.5 C, we would not be in an
ice house global climate.
Or we could have an ocean which is 10 C, and still have both Ice Sheets, but one could assume such ice sheet would be be permanent- they probably would not last more than 10,000 years. And therefore not be in an Icehouse global climate.
And we actually could have warm ocean. All our nuclear weapons are no where near enough to warm our ocean. But we could use what we have, and make a lot more [specifically designed to warm our ocean] and if talking +1 trillion dollars wasted on it, we could warm ocean by a significant amount.
We could also be hit by larger size space rock, and it could warm the ocean “for free” though such “an uncontrolled thing”, would probably costs trillions of dollars of damage and kill a lot of people.
–Big asteroid to zoom by Earth on Wednesday
By Mike Wall
published 1 day ago
It’s not a particularly close shave just a reminder that we share space with a lot of fast-moving rocks.–
https://www.space.com/asteroid-2005-yy128-earth-flyby
“Their observations, however, haven’t nailed down 2005 YY128’s size. The best astronomers can give us is a diameter range somewhere between 1,903 feet (580 meters) and 4,265 feet (1.3 km), according to EarthSky.”
1.3 km diameter, probably wouldn’t be enough, but could add as much as much oceanic heat all nuclear weapons we have. And likely to kill millions of people and trillions of dollars in damages.
Some news about when Starship could do test launch.
March 11 is date NASA is circling as possible/likely, in terms of what NASA assets it’s going to use to monitor the launch. So, that indicates a time SpaceX is telling NASA and what FAA is telling NASA.
Or best guess by people at NASA which could have more “insider” information. But with new rocket launching for first time, no time in history has this been accurate. Or one simply needs to closer to the time of launch “expected”. Or if this was said on March 5th, there more chance of it happenning. But indicates, very unlikely before March 5th. Then got weather after March 5th which would have a lot to do with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9DqZjOcoRs
It talks a lot about a NASA airplane- which I didn’t know anything about {that is old plane- but it seems quite useful- flies to 50,000 feet}.
The B57 began as a licence built version of the English Electric Canberra bomber and reconnaissance aircraft.
https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/english-electric-canberra
The Canberra was noted for its high altitude performance, which made it hard to intercept.
Martin licence-built a modified version with increased wing area and more powerful turbofan engines, again intended as a high altitude bombing and reconnaissance platform. IIRC there are three still flying with NASA, used as high altitude instrument platforms.
A test:
https://salemnewschannel.com/watch/?v=63ebf3f6cab71c0001236c36
It worked.
It’s interesting in many ways, but tried to link to amazing
woman before and I couldn’t make it work {as I recall}.
More on her:
https://tinyurl.com/26e6wc4f
–They were in Manhattan, living in the freest country you can imagine, and theyre saying theyre oppressed? It doesnt even compute, Yeonmi Park told The Post of students at her alma mater, Columbia University. I was sold for $200 as a sex slave in the 21st century under the same sky. And they say theyre oppressed because people cant follow their pronouns they invent every day?
The 29-year-old defected from North Korea as a young teen, only to be human-trafficked in China. In 2014, she became one of just 200 North Koreans to live in the United States and, as of last year, is an American citizen.–
linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
ent…I wish you’d lay some biology theory on us rather than lame geological theories posed by geologists who studied geology because it was easy credits and paid fairly well.
How about something on telomeres and how to regrow them to protect our cells so we can live longer?
Whatever happened in the past is irrelevant (big elephant). The truth today is that both the Arctic and the Antarctic are frozen solid most of the year due to a reduced or complete lack of solar input. No amount of heat transferred from the Tropics will ever change that. Nor will any amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
“entI wish youd lay some biology theory on us”
Always happy to oblige.
You mentioned ATP. In mitochondria the enzyme ATP synthase uses a rotating mechanism to assemble ATP from ADP and phosphate.
The enzyme is embedded in a membrane and powered by the flow of hydrogen ions down the potential gradient across the membrane.
Enjoy the two videos here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase
EM,
Heat moving from the equatorial regions to the poles is complete nonsense – delusional SkyDragon fantasy.
As the daytime heated surface becomes sunless, the temperature drops. No “heat movement” to be seen.
As to polar regions, you might familiarize yourself with the reasons they are cold – don’t forget they were originally molten, like the rest of the surface.
Ocean currents do not carry “heat from the Sun” anywhere. Heated surface water promptly loses its heat at night. Deep water certainly is not heated by the Sun – neither IR nor visible light penetrates the ocean depths. Just more SkyDragon religious beliefs.
You might consider why you can’t find a useful description of the GHE (which accords with reality) anywhere at all! Or just keep sprouting nonsense – appealing to your own authority.
swenson..from ent…”Heat moving from the equatorial regions to the poles is complete nonsense delusional SkyDragon fantasy”.
***
I think this is a perversion of what Lindzen offered in lieu of the GHE fabrication. He claimed heat in the Tropics moves poleward, not to the Poles. We know it’s true to an extent that warmer water and air from the Tropics can cause warming further north since warmer waters in the Gulf Stream and the Japanese Current warm western Europe and western North America slightly. It would be a stretch to claim they warm the polar regions or even the Arctic/Antarctic.
As a recipient of the Japanese Current here in Vancouver, and its atmospheric equivalent, the Pineapple Express, it keeps us a few degrees above 0C in winter whereas the rest of our Province away from the coast tends to be sub-zero.
To claim those systems warm us would be facetious. I was just out for a hour’s walk in +5C weather and it’s cold, damp and gloomy. They do, however, make the difference between bundling up and going for a brisk walk and freezing to death during it.
Also, as a kid, and even as an adult, I played soccer from September through April, most of the time even playing in December and January, whereas that would not be possible in most parts of inland Canada. That’s what is meant by the Tropics warming my part of the world.
If interested, look up weather in Prince Rupert, which is on the same coast but 400 miles north. Today it’s temperatures are close to ours. Prince George is another 400 miles inland from PR and it’s at -3C.
A week from today, PR is forecast to be -9C and PG -21C. On the same Wed, in a week, we are forecast to be -5C. That’s due to an Arctic front descending on us but the Arctic air is generally the same degree of coldness. You can see the effect warmer ocean air has on it.
ent…”When enough heat is carried to a pole by air movement or ocean currents permanent ice cover cannot form”.
***
When there is no solar input for much of the Arctic/Antarctic year and very little for 10 months of the year, there is no way heat from elsewhere on the planet will make a shred of difference melting ice in either location.
Till you can go swimming in a bathing suit off the southern coast of Greenland or Iceland you can forget AGW warming anything.
We have endured on-going propaganda from alarmists the past 35 years and nothing has changed. You still can’t swim off the coast of Canada on either coast in winter unless you want to die of hypothermia. That’s a long way from the Poles, which are currently under 10 feet of ice.
Weather…
The point is Maguff, why is Colorado still getting snow when the climate is allegedly changing catastrophically? Not long ago, climate change theory, under its proper name, global warming theory, was predicting an Arctic Ocean free of ice. The alarmists were openly predicting that, by now, children in places like Colorado would never see snow.
Seems those theories are not only wrong, they are egeregiously wrong.
You might want to discuss this with the Republicans.
A White House staffer for George H W Bush decided that they would use climate change instead of global warming because the latter sounded less alarming.
Come on, Ent, you’re a biologist. surely you can formulate a response without resorting to red herring arguments.
Come on, Bordon.
The Luntz memo:
https://climateball.net/but-word-change/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Palmowsky’s dream: the weakest solar cycle evah
” The number of sunspots jumps strongly, but the UV index indicates the peak of solar activity in this cycle. ”
https://i.ibb.co/5LhdRHG/EISNcurrent.png
https://i.ibb.co/PTx06tg/mgii-composite-2.png
Where is that peak?
Solar wind
speed: 359.8 km/sec
density: 21.39 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 206
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 180 sfu
Updated 15 Feb 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.38×10^10 W Warm
{this is highest thermosphere has
been energized in 25, flux is significant lower
than it has been been recently}
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.4% Below Average
48-hr change: -1.0%
{No coronal holes for a while}
Average Jan was 143.6 spots, I thought it could
average less in Feb, but still be quite high, but it
Feb could be higher than Jan, but I tend to think rest
of month will bring average down, or go sideways, rather
than go higher than Jan.
It seems big spots are growing and small spots are disappering,
and no new spot coming from farside, or spot number goes down
tomorrow, but we going have the rest of big spots for days.
Could tie Feb average number?? Certainly at least, the second highest
month
March or April could be much higher month- is my guess.
Agh: “Sunspot number: 190” was 208,
and now refreshed and now,
Sunspot number: 140
Will not obviously, go below 140 tomorrow-
they counted it a minute ago
Count it again
Solar wind
speed: 439.5 km/sec
density: 3.55 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 140
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 174 sfu
Updated 16 Feb 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.79×10^10 W Warm
{highest it’s been is in cycle 25}
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.5% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.7%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
See no spots coming from farside and
spots leaving to farside- flux lowered
a bit, will lower more
Sideways for Feb, is more likely.
I would guess in next couple months
we match Jan, and quickly go higher, and
then “quickly” fall fast.
What do others, guess?
After my guess I looked at other guesses:
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
13 February – 11 March 2023
Solar activity is expected to be at low to M-class flare activity
(R1-R2, Minor-Moderate) levels throughout the outlook period.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit. However, a
chance for a proton event exists throughout the period from the more
complex, magnetically active regions.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to be at high levels on 13-15 Feb and 07-11 Mar. Normal to
moderate levels are expected on 16 Feb – 06 Mar. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
I roughly, agree
101
https://i.postimg.cc/dtcmxctV/number-of-c-m-and-x-clas.png
92
Bask below 100
https://i.postimg.cc/kg3wxPc0/EISNcurrent.png
Solar wind
speed: 453.0 km/sec
density: 4.75 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 101
[“New sunspot AR3229 is crackling with low-level M-class solar flares.] Saved by AR3229 coming from farside. 3216 near going
to farside, but we get more just AR3229 arriving. Not many small
spot, just moderately big spots. I tend to think less small spots
growing [or appearing from nowhere], is “a sign” of less activity
in the near term- or it’s one of my “theories” or palm reading tips.
We also have moderate size coronal hole – more palm reading sign indicating a slow down.
And this:
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 163 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.92×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.0% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.6%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Your daily numbers have nothing to do with my question above.
*
For more serious daily data:
https://www.sid~c.be/silso/DATA/EISN/EISN_current.txt
(take the ‘~’ away)
https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/forecast-prevision/solar-solaire/solarflux/sx-5-flux-en.php
(select URSI column)
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/MgII_extended.dat
Tail of EISN_current.txt:
2023 02 14 2023.122 179 16.9 28 37
2023 02 15 2023.125 144 26.0 22 28
2023 02 16 2023.127 108 17.3 22 25
Apparently, SSN is only of interest to Palmowski when it gets as close to zero as possible, motivating him to post a creepy ‘GSM is coming soon’.
Warmistas aren’t good for us, but Coolistas are even worse.
Where on that UV index you posted does it show UV output for 2022 or 2023?
Binny becomes more of an idiot with each posting. Maybe if you tried communicating with ren rather than using hostility, he might respond to your dumb question.
Robertson
” Where on that UV index you posted does it show UV output for 2022 or 2023? ”
You are here the arrogant and ignorant idiot.
The sentence
” The number of sunspots jumps strongly, but the UV index indicates the peak of solar activity in this cycle. ”
was written by Palmowsky himself, you dumb ass.
That’s the reason why I wrote it in quotation marks; but probably you drank once more too much whisky while posting, and overlooked them for the 1,000th time.
*
And above all, you are so incompetent and scientifically so ignorant that you don’t even manage to look up for yourself what the Bremen Mg II index has to do with UV.
Regardless what you write about (viruses, Einstein, GHE, temperature measurements, the lunar spin, and especially the Russian aggression against Ukraine): it’s all complete trash.
A trash you never would dare to post anywhere else.
binny…” The number of sunspots jumps strongly, but the UV index indicates the peak of solar activity in this cycle.
was written by Palmowsky himself, you dumb ass”.
***
That’s not what I was questioning, it was the links you provided, apparently trying to contradict ren’s statement.
NEWSFLASH!!!
It appears those nasty oil companies being assailed by alarmists on this blog supply the primary funding for Green projects.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fossil-fuel-profits-vital-green-energy-projects-dems-routinely-tout
Is it any wonder fuel prices are so high when consumers are not only supporting the fossil fuel industry, they are also support the Green eco-alarmist projects.
Next time someone pans Richard Lindzen for taking oil money, they had better clarify if he is receiving the money from the fossil fuel side or the Green side.
ent…”you should not be using volume as you base unit for describing convection, you should be using mass or n”.
***
There is no convection in the model I am presenting and I made that clear. I am talking about a purely static, hypothetical gas that is graded by pressure by gravity.
I am trying to demonstrate the relationship of P,V, n, and T in a static gas that has a negative pressure gradient. I realize my model is overly simplified but the thrust of it is to demonstrate the relationship in the gas between the majority gases O2/N2 and CO2.
If the relationship between the gases re warming is true for a static, ideal gas then they should hold equally for a chaotic system, or be close.
I demonstrated how to overcome the volume problem. If air is stratified with regard to pressure there must be concentric-like spherical areas where a constant volume is close enough. By applying the IGL to each stratum, we could later sum them to get an integral value.
It’s not worth all that carry on, I just want to demonstrate that the ability of a trace gas to warm a multi-gas mix is proportional to its mass-percent. In that case, O2/N2, at about 99 mass percent produces almost 99% of the heat and CO2 at 0.04% produces barely none.
That’s the science, not arbitrarily giving CO2 a 9 – 25% warming factor, which is the value used by climate models, and agreeing through consensus that is correct. The IGL shows that amount of warming attributed to CO2 is far from correct.
–Thats the science, not arbitrarily giving CO2 a 9 25% warming factor,–
If 9 to 25%, I ask anyone to pick a value of the 9 to 25.
No one has done this.
But it’s fundamentally wrong.
And Earth average temperature is around 25 C.
15 C is Earth’s ice house global average temperature and this is a cold average temperature for most of the Ice house global climate.
And Earth’s orbital motions “pulled” Earth from the depths of coldest known Earth temperature with the lowest know level of CO2.
And this was range which some committee of idiots [and criminals] came up with it, because they were unaware what other than greenhouse gases would cause any “warming”. They were uneducated idiots, at best.
And we have another moron who thinks CO2 alone causes 33 C.
GB,
CO2 contributes 10% of the 33 at most. Look what doubling does; almost nothing if the model is correct.
I would guess that is generally a lukewarmer guess.
So if had zero CO2 and adding CO2 so had 300 ppm,
at most it adds 3.3 C to global average temperature.
And if then 1/2 it to 150 ppm, how much does it lower global
average temperature.
Or if doubled it to 600 ppm, how much does it increase it?
Though lukewarmer may say there many factors which dampen the
effect.
And/or other lukewarmer might say greenhouse effect from the atmosphere is less 1/2 of 33 C. And say at most it’s 20% – which I would roughly guess is Richard Lindzen view.
Or lukewarmer don’t agree with each other, in terms of how
much does 300 ppm CO2 increase the atmosphere’s average temperature.
But also no one agrees.
Decades ago, I thought a doubling of CO2 would cause at most 2 to 3 C
of warming, and it appears it’s less than that.
It seems if I was correct, we would been able to measure this amount
warming. One reason this was wrong, is could take much longer- and it
related to what is claimed NASA and NOAA, that more than 90% of global warming is warming the Ocean.
And it seems me, it could be more the 95% of global warming is warming the ocean- which has average temperature of about 3.5 C.
Or what controls global air temperature is our cold ocean.
And if could warm by say 1 C, you get CAGW type things.
Except CAGW is just a more uniform global temperature and less deserts, which would be much better world.
Or we go back to a “CAGW” world.
Though 4.5 C ocean seems warmer the anytime in Holocene, but it’s somewhere around the ocean temperature of the last interglacial period.
Or it’s wishful thinking that we ever get to ocean with average temperature of 4.5 C using any greenhouse gas. And foolishly attempting natural gas, would be a huge waste of natural gas- tens of trillion of dollars of natural gas- thrown away.
If you consider Happer’s recent paper, according to their model, doubling CO2 will add 0.6C of warming.
Link, please.
Link? Really? You haven’t seen that paper?
–stephen p. anderson says:
February 16, 2023 at 4:21 PM
If you consider Happers recent paper, according to their model, doubling CO2 will add 0.6C of warming.”
Doubling of what?
“The major conclusion is obviously the following: if William Happer is right, the effect of a doubling of the CO 2 rate on the temperature of the globe (400 to 800 ppm) will be minimal because we have almost already arrived at a saturated.”
I think it’s quite possible 800 ppm, never comes.
I think it’s possible 500 ppm, doesn’t come anytime in the reasonable
future.
And I think every agrees it’s not going to happen within 10 years.
China imported coal has dropped a lot recently: $214.00 per ton:
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal
when for more 6 month it was about $400 I thought it was quite possible China was at peak Coal, if continues another month or so at around $200 per ton, I might change my mind- even though $200 is still fairly high.
It seems if objective about it, Govt haven’t and aren’t making any effort at lowered Global CO2 levels.
They burnt a lot of wood, they pushed industry to China which mostly burns Coal and create a lot pollution. China is a huge Mexico but have ship things a longer distance- Chinese are poorer than Mexico- and certainly more enslaved than Mexicians.
They opposed Fracking- and it lower CO2 emission. Now they give lip service to nuclear power, but they were against it, and they really have not done anything to get back nuclear power energy.
No govt claiming to trying to reduce CO2 has done anything to reduce CO2. They don’t count or report CO2 emission. And maybe China is emitted twice as much as they are emitting.
There is no news, they are no costs to just lying endlessly.
BUT if I believe what being reported, it seems China is not increasing it’s CO2 emissions. So the country which doubled global CO2 emission, has stopped it’s ever increasing CO2 emissions- and seems China could reduce CO2, because they can’t increase it.
And seems more countries are using natural gas, and whether report it
or not, that will lower global CO2 emission.
And we still have a very cold ocean.
GB,
Ed Berry, Salby (RIP), and Harde et.al. all conclude that most of the rise is natural. It does seem reaching 800ppm is hundreds of years off, if ever.
At $200/ton, I believe natural gas is about half the cost on a BTU basis. I don’t see it going to $400. I see the opposite. Fossil fuels are going to drop in price as this depression takes hold. However, they’ll still be expensive relative to other things. The things people need to live, like food, fuel, and water, will become expensive on a relative basis.
You mean the paper we would need to buy because you do not know how to use a scanner, Troglodyte?
That’s some serious alarmism from stephen p. anderson.
Since I’m sure that my dog has a broader vocabulary than you, here’s a simple definition:
Alarmism is the tendency to exaggerate or overstate the severity or imminence of a problem or threat, often in a way that creates unnecessary fear or panic. Alarmism often involves making dramatic predictions or claims without sufficient evidence or analysis, and presenting worst-case scenarios as likely or inevitable. This can be done intentionally for political or ideological purposes, or as a result of genuine concern or lack of understanding of the issue at hand.
This seems to be a feature with you, not a bug.
stephen p. anderson says:
At $200/ton, I believe natural gas is about half the cost on a BTU basis. I dont see it going to $400.
————————
Yep what keeps it cheap is poor distribution. Thus the big push for LNG terminals.
“At $200/ton, I believe natural gas is about half the cost on a BTU basis. I dont see it going to $400.”
In US, coal used for electrical power has been less than $50 per ton- if it was $100 per ton, it, can’t be competitive with natural gas. But Coal has advantage if you got lot of wind and solar- so maybe not if we get more of the magical alternative energies, Coal could be higher priced.
In China they importing more coal then US uses, but China imported coal is small fraction of China’s coal use. And anyhow, for imported non crappy coal, China pays, $214 per ton. It was paying for 7 months about $400 per ton, but from beginning Feb 2023, it crashed to $214 tons.
It could be govt lifted restriction on using crappy polluting coal or
something else. There was apparently big corruption scandal in Mongolia recently in regards to coal producers- it could be related.
China imported coal: $205.65
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal
It keeps on crashing.
One could regard it as good news.
It could indicate Russia has worked it’s problems
and is shipping a lot coal.
And/or could be seen a very important matter related to
Russian national security.
Gordon Robertson
You said upthread
“Try to set aside this notion that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. ”
Now you say
” I just want to demonstrate that the ability of a trace gas to warm a multi-gas mix is proportional to its mass-percent. In that case, O2/N2, at about 99 mass percent produces almost 99% of the heat and CO2 at 0.04% produces barely none. ”
How can oxygen and nitrogen produce energy in Earth’s atmosphere?
Once you discard conservation of energy you can believe any old nonsense.
The mass of oxygen and nitrogen atmosphere can distribute heat uniformly globally, and all global warming is causing a more uniform global temperature.
The only thing which adds energy is the sun, and the heat of our molten planet.
Or distributing heat is delaying heat loss, and no one talks of increasing energy, but they do talk of delaying heat from reaching space.
ent…”How can oxygen and nitrogen produce energy in Earths atmosphere?”
***
Surely you are joking. When you enter a warm room on a cold day, you are being warmed by thermal energy from O2/N2. When you are out getting fresh air during the day, it is O2/N2 that is warming you, or cooling you, depending on ambient temperatures.
You surely don’t think N2/O2 are inert gases along for the ride? You could remove all CO2 and WV from the air and all we would suffer is nasal discomfort from the dry air. No change in temperature would be noticed.
An influx of Arctic air into the western US and a northerly circulation in the eastern North Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/j8h6z5M/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
A step toward the goal of 1-kilometer grid cell global climate simulator.
New Exascale Supercomputer Can Do a Quintillion Calculations a Second
One quintillion is 10^18. How incredibly large is this number?
If you counted from one to one quintillion at a rate of one number per second, it would take you over 31 million years to finish.
If you had one quintillion grains of sand, you could cover the entire surface of the Earth with a layer that is about 7.5 miles deep.
With all that speed, no computer can think in parallel like the human brain. And no computer can operate without that slow human brain programming it.
Of course, every computer is subject to the garbage in – garbage out syndrome. In other words, it’s only as good as its program. Nowhere is that more obvious than in climate models, none of which could predict tomorrow’s weather.
“Of course, every computer is subject to the garbage in – garbage out syndrome. In other words, it’s only as good as its program.”
You misunderstand the principle of GIGO.
In computer science and IT, GIGO is used to emphasize the importance of ensuring that the data entered into a system is accurate and relevant. If the input data is incorrect, incomplete, or irrelevant, the output will also be incorrect, incomplete, or irrelevant.
The principle of GIGO can also be applied to other areas, such as decision-making and problem-solving. For example, if a decision is based on faulty or incomplete information, the result is likely to be flawed or ineffective.
Winter weather…
More than 2 feet of snow fell across the southwestern mountains over the past two days! Skies are now clearing and we’ll see plenty of sunshine this afternoon.
Snowfall totals:
Wolf Creek Pass 25″, Genessee 12″, Conifer 10″, Wheat Ridge 8″, Denver Int’l 3.6″.
Hey, Denver, this is your AM reminder to give yourself extra time to get where you’re going this AM, and if you’re a motorist, allow for that extra stopping distance. Roads are still icy and snow packed in some areas.
More weather…
Record heat wave in India with temperatures at unprecedented levels for this time of the year.
Today 16 February Bhuj, Gujarat and Kandla rose to 39C,a new monthly record.
Next few days will see more of the same in India and Pakistan
What is the humidity?
One concern exercising the Indian government is that the human physiological limit is a sustained temperature of 35C wet bulb.
Recent heat waves are already increasing the death rate. Sooner or later they expect a particularly warm and sustained heat wave to cause mass deaths.
Current humidity is only 15%.
Safe enough for the moment.
“Safe enough for the moment.”
Yes, that’s 20.1C wet bulb.
Entropic man says:
”Recent heat waves are already increasing the death rate. Sooner or later they expect a particularly warm and sustained heat wave to cause mass deaths.”
EM you will have to do better than that. July 1936 saw 5,000 heat related deaths in one month for a US population rate of about 39 per million population. . .in one month.
https://www.weather.gov/ilx/july1936heat#:~:text=July%201936%2C%20part%20of%20the,people%20died%20from%20the%20heat.
What folks would like to see is hard data. Here is some data from the EPA on deathrates from cold and heat in the US.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-related-deaths
An average somewhere near 1.5 per million population
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-cold-related-deaths
As you can see death rates per death certificates from heat and cold is actually in a bit of a decline. The heat figures are for (on the same scale, see note in graphic) is actually on a bit of decline over 1999-2018. While cold deaths also are slightly declining (more moderate weather via increased GHE?) and remain about 50% higher than heat deaths.
Americans can afford air conditioning and heating.
Cold is not a problem in India, but most people have no protection from the heat.
Have you looked at heat related deaths in India?
https://theprint.in/environment/in-last-20-years-death-rate-due-to-heatwaves-increased-by-62-in-india-imd-study-says/615442/
“In January 1896 a savage blast “like a furnace” stretched across Australia from east to west and lasted for weeks. The death toll reached 437 people in the eastern states. Newspaper reports showed that in Bourke the heat approached 120F (48.9C) on three days.
Slightly inconvenient for the BOM, devout SkyDragon cultists, so the BOM declared that official temperatures before 1910 were “unreliable”.
Massage the past out of existence, then claim present heatwaves are “unprecedented”!
Whether is fickle and unpredictable. Always has been always will be.
And this is what the Indians themselves are reporting.
https://www.cseindia.org/heat-waves-in-india-a-cse-media-briefing-note-11241
EM,
From your link –
” . . . and the Earths global surface temperature has warmed by 1.09 compared to the pre-industrial period of 1850-1900.”
That’s nonsense according to the Australian BOM, who claim that all official temperatures prior to 1910 are “unreliable”. Or maybe the highly qualified meteorologists and “climatologists” at the BOM are wrong?
Your link doesn’t mention that official temperatures exceeded 50 C in 1896, in parts of India. Maybe the current hot conditions are not “unprecedented”, just more widely reported.
By the way, if a wet bulb reading of 35 C is fatal, places like Darwin or Singapore, must be largely populated by the living dead.
Accept reality – SkyDragon cult propaganda may not be telling the whole truth.
swenson…”In January 1896 a savage blast like a furnace stretched across Australia from east to west and lasted for weeks”.
***
Sounds like the US and Canada in the 1930s, with the exception that the heat lasted for nearly a decade. Records for heat waves were set during that decade and have not been equaled since.
Entropic man says:
”Americans can afford air conditioning and heating.
Cold is not a problem in India, but most people have no protection from the heat.
Have you looked at heat related deaths in India?”
you need to take that carefully.
There are several issues. The comparison is 1980-2000 vs 2000-2020
india had a heat related death rate about 1/3rd the us rate. around .4 persons per million.
US had about 1.3 persons per million.
why is that? well heat mostly affects the elderly and us life expectancy is at 79 going up about 5 years over the period.
india otoh over the period tested had there life expectancy soar from 53 to 70.
We probably should give some credit for that to climate change as the same study says deaths were 80% higher in the previous 20yrs compared to most recent 20. Pretty amazing huh.
Well there is something interesting. The US data has a note at the EPA site that the WHO changed the method of accounting for heat related deaths in 2000, right at the dividing point of the india comparison.
In the US this change doubled the heat related death rate from about .6 up to the 1.3 in a step change.
The study in India is silent about this but notes that there has been significant improvement in reporting on weather related deaths over the period.
So in effect its possible India’s heat related death rate, like the US has been going down not up. in the us it was going down from 1980 to 2000 as well as the mot recent years. but that would be amazing with the aging india population.
Its really amazing how fucked all the worlds data systems are isn’t it?
I should clarify that the huge 80% difference/reduction compared to current in deaths in India were only deaths due to extreme weather which includes heat, cold, storms, floods, and lightning.
Swenson says:
Massage the past out of existence, then claim present heatwaves are unprecedented!
Whether is fickle and unpredictable. Always has been always will be.
———————————–
yes check this epa link out on heat related deaths. then read the asterisk note below the graph.
and note that em’s link doesn’t show the year to year trend between the decades and the step change. is this more WHO inspired misinformation?
i have to thank em for exposing this.
Whenever you are ready, EM.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tropical depression with downpours enters Queensland.
SOI is on the rise.
https://i.ibb.co/bBQsxjt/mimictpw-ausf-latest.gif
A second sudden warming of the stratosphere is at work in the northern hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/xFfCGVf/pole30-nh.gif
What about posting the same stuff since say 2000 so we could all see how important your endless posting of such scary messages really is?
You’re the one who wrote “scary.”
Of course!
I did because you post scary messages all the time.
Are you not scared? Perhaps you lack imagination.
Don’t be afraid to admit to fear. Courage is defined as “fear faced with resolution.”
Think back to your last emergency. A more down to Earth definition of courage is ” Being scared sh*tless and still doing what needs to be done.”
ent…”Courage is defined as fear faced with resolution”.
***
Or as I have discovered in a few street fights, it comes down to how much you want to live. You can be scared stiff but you have to gather your faculties and focus. When you are sufficiently focused, there is no room for fear in the same space.
I was recently reading an account of the US war hero, Audie Murphy. He only went 5′ 7″, but those watching him in action claimed he moved very fast and kept very low to the ground. He admitted to feeling scared and he got shot a couple of times, but I guess it was what you wrote, a resolution to face his feeling and get on with it.
EM,
Nah, I’m not scared by climate change. It always has changed, always will, and anybody who claims that they can predict the future better than I can is quite mad.
Feel free to be twice as scared on my behalf. That should satisfy both of us. I can continue to be supremely unscared by the SkyDragon cult’s predictions of “Doom! Doom! Doom!”
Yes, I am laughing at your fear.
scary? Yeah I guess its scary for some, dang the world population is exploding. Thats the biggest fear of environmentalists. Everybody is living longer to. Do we credit that to climate change? Why not?
Its party time!
binny…how about you leaving ren alone? That’s a another solution.
If you know anything about psychology you can easily see from his postings that Bindidong is mentally ill with all the traits of a narcissist.
Robertson
Hoe about you leaving this blog and sparing us your ton of daily trash?
Binny,
Hoe about you stop whining and get back to predicting the future by dissecting the past?
You might as well keep everyone’s snigger bag full.
How about you stop braying, Mike Flynn?
Kidding. Keep braying.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ent…”About 17% of the outward radiation from the surface is at wavelengths to which the atmosphere is transparent and radiates directly to space or is at wavelengths which are intercepted by IR active gases and reradiated in random directions”.
***
You have the percentage backwards and a bit exaggerated. It is GHGs that allegedly trap 17% of surface radiation while the rest escapes directly to space. The figure trapped is closer to 5%.
I am basing that on a figure of 398 w/m^2 allegedly radiated from the Earth’s surface. Only 28 watts of that is captured by GHGs, on average, make the amount absorbed about 7%, not 17%.
I have been combing the Net for the past hour trying to find articles that do not agree with the GHE as described for a greenhouse. Even NASA claims the GHE version and they describe it in a manner that suggests it is not a metaphor, as you claim. Every article I have read, including one from MIT, claims that back-radiation from colder GHGs in space is absorbed by the surface and warms it.
I am sure that’s a thorn in the side of Richard Lindzen, who taught at MIT. I know there are also rabid alarmists at MIT led by Kerry Emmanuel. Just as NASA is generally decent at science, they too are burdened with pseudo-scientific climate alarmists at NASA GISS.
The most vexing pseudo-science I encounter is that heat is transferred from the surface to space. Heat transfer through a gas by conduction is very inefficient, therefore insignificant, and that leaves so-called thermal radiation, convection being another matter. Convection is not a transfer of heat through a gas, it is a bulk movement of a heated mass of gas.
However, radiation is electromagnetic energy and we know an EM wave is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. It contains no heat. It is impossible for EM to move heat as thermal energy.
I would think, by this day and age, especially after Bohr’s revelation of the relationship between electrons and EM, that modern scientists would have gotten over the 19th century anachronism that heat moves through space as heat rays.
There are posters here on Roy’s blog who are astounded by the fact that heat is not transferred through space from the Sun. It is first converted to EM then back to heat at the Earth, however, that transfer from EM to heat is done locally by electrons in the surface. In other words, the heat is generated locally. It is new heat, not the heat at the Sun when the EM was generated.
How can we talk about scientific matters when some are totally ignorant of the fundamentals of thermodynamics?
We need to stop this pseudo-science. Heat is dissipated at the surface when EM, as IR, is generated. The heat alleged to be moving through the atmosphere as radiation and ultimately trapped, or dumped into space, has already been lost when the IR was created. No heat exists by that stage to be trapped.
Under the top mm of the ocean surface is where most heat in generated on Earth.
H20 gas is produced in the top mm of ocean surface, and this gas which created, kinetically heats other gases [via collision} it also transfer heat by condensing into liquid which if warmer than air, can heat gases via convection and also be constantly evaporating and condensing. This make the air above the water the same temperature as surface of water.
In contrast one have sidewalk which 60 C, and air above being 20 or 30 C. And 60 C sidewalk will radiate more radiant energy directly in the space.
Not much radiant energy from hot sideway goes vertically straight up,
instead a sidewalk surface will radiate in random directions, some goes 90 degree up, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, etc degree and like hemisphere
and most radiant is going more in sideway direction as compared going up. Which means further straight up from sideway the less radiant energy is reaching you. But this true of direction, but people stand around a hemisphere than stand on top of it. Or if a huge hemisphere
a few stand around 90 degree or near north pole and there a lot space
on rest of hemispheric surface.
So, if don’t don’t atmosphere [it’s vacuum] 20 km from surface has little radiant energy reaching you directly from the surface, and could more from 45 degree angle. And if have atmosphere, and reach you from 45 degree angle, that radiant energy goes thru more atmosphere.
And on clear sky the 1360 watts of direct sunlight has only 1120 watts of direct and indirect sunlight reaches surface {watts per square meter] if sun is at zenith though if sunlight travels at 45 degree angle it about 200 watts less. More atmosphere due shallower angle the more sunlight is scatter and reflected.
A sidewalk doesn’t have any direct or indirect light, it’s diffused
light {and weak radiant energy] If reflect sunlight with mirror at earth surface, it going get thru atmosphere better, but unless pointed in right direction, not going to see it.
So only 40 watts goes directly thru the atmosphere and most of will be taking shortest distance [going thru the least amount the atmosphere [which is about 10 tons of air per square meter- rather going thru 15, 20, 40 tons of air per square meter].
“How can we talk about scientific matters when some are totally ignorant of the fundamentals of thermodynamics? ”
Yes. Since you announced that you don’t believe in conservation of energy, I’ve come to regard you as beyond retrieval.
EM,
You wrote –
“Since you announced that you dont believe in conservation of energy, Ive come to regard you as beyond retrieval.”
If you cant quote Gordon’s “announcement”, I would have to regard you as either delusional or flat out lying.
Unfortunately, you don’t seem to understand what “the conservation of energy” actually means. Maybe you could provide a definition of the conservation of energy – and then try to explain what it has to do with any deranged SkyDragon cult beliefs.
On the other hand, you can’t can you? No “maybe” about it.
You could always try poking yourself in the eye with a sharp stick, and looking for sympathy by blaming me for inflicting your pain. Only joking, even you are not that stupid – are you?
Carry on.
Gordon Robertson
The sad truth for you is you have such little actual understanding of science that no one here can reason with you in a logical manner. You falsely claim EMR does not transfer heat but what is your explanation for an object cooling in vacuum conditions where only radiant heat transfer is possible? Objects cool by radiation therefore EMR transfers heat from one location to another. Your false and misleading ideas are noted and they are bad on many levels. I read on the other thread you rejected textbook physics because it does not align with your made up opinions of how you think physics work. You are a crackpot 100%. Nothing can change a crackpot. You will continue to peddle your made up science just like Clint R. You two are the Crackpot Twins on this blog.
Thanks for mentioning me Norman. You and Bindidon always remember me. That’s good. That means I’m effective.
I bet you still have no valid technical reference to support your made-up science.
Prove me wrong.
Clint R
I have given you plenty of facts, data, textbook links etc. You ignore the information or say the dumbest thing (seems you do it a lot). “Another link you don’t understand”
With this mindless and pointless response to large amounts of valid data there is not hope for a Crackpot like you. Neither you nor Gordon Robertson understand any actual science and you reject any information that proves you are wrong.
Wonder why you keep asking for things you don’t care about like it is supposed to have meaning.
I gave you a textbook problem that clearly showed fluxes adding. You did not grasp the content and were stuck on view factor and you stated your idiot response “Another link you don’t understand”.
You, Gordon Robertson, and Swenson are hopelessly stupid. Lack logical or rational thought and repeat the same things over and over hundreds of times. You are “ball on string” stupid. Swenson is “cooling for 4.5 billion years” and Gordon Robertson just comes up with daffy conclusions on any physics topic.
The bunch of your have no mind but it won’t stop you from your idiot posting.
Norman
You wrote “Swenson is “cooling for 4.5 billion years””, for some bizarre reason. Are you denying that the Earth no longer has a surface so hot that it would glow?
As you said “Objects cool by radiation”, and I wonder why you don’t accept that the Earth is an “object”. Maybe you are either reading SkyDragon “textbooks”, or possibly misinterpreting what you have been reading elsewhere.
When you accept that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, then you will be comfortable with your statement that “Objects cool by radiation”.
Or you can keep flogging a dead horse, insisting that the Earth’s surface is still glowing hot, or its interior is colder than the surface, or some other idiocy. In true SkyDragon fashion though, you resolutely refuse to describe the GHE, or provide any facts to support your fantasy.
Keep whining and complaining – you might find someone to agree with you, although they wouldn’t quite be able to figure out what they were actually agreeing with!
Keep on keeping on.
All wrong troll Norman, as usual.
You just fling nonsense at the wall, hoping you can fool folks. It’s always easy to debunk you.
What you need to show is that two fluxes (315 W/m^2 each) arriving a surface will simply add so that the surface reaches a temperature of 325K, emitting 630 W/m^2. Just claiming such nonsense won’t hack it. Just saying two spotlights will be brighter than one spotlight won’t hack it. You need to show, from a valid technical reference what was described in the first sentence of this paragraph (and claimed by fraudkerts). You can’t do that.
Norman,
You wrote –
“Objects cool by radiation . . . “.
Just like the Earth.
By George, I think you’ve got it!
Yet another duplicate comment with no original…
normie…”You falsely claim EMR does not transfer heat…”
***
Why is it so difficult for you to grasp what I am saying and respond to that, rather than taking shots in lieu of doing science?
Is there any heat in EM? It is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. Does either field contain heat? An electric field is not related to heat nor is a magnetic field.
In order that an electron emit EM, it must drop to a lower kinetic energy level. A reduction of KE in this case is a reduction in heat. That’s one way in which a body cools, it emits EM. If the body cools, the heat lost is not converted to EM, it is simply lost.
The body does not emit heat, it emits EM. Heat is lost in the emitting body when EM is emitted. If that emitted EM reaches a cooler body, it can be absorbed and converted back to heat. However, the heat created is not the heat from the emitting body, it is brand new heat.
Looking at this from another angle, suppose the emitted EM comes from a communications antenna. The EM is produced by electrons moving at high speed up and down a metal antenna. When the EM is produced, power is lost at the antenna and that power is in the form of an electron current.
Are you now going to tell me the EM transfers electric current from the antenna to another antenna?
Norman, you don’t get it that I have spent much of my life studying such power transfer, not only theoretically but practically. A simple electrical transformer converts electrical power in the primary winding to a magnetic field, that magnetic field cuts the windings in the transformer secondary and produces an electrical current in the secondary winding.
The primary current has absolutely nothing to do with the secondary current, which is generated by the secondary windings. That’s why transformer are considered to isolate the primary circuit from the secondary circuit. Current in the primary has nothing to do with current in the secondary.
It’s the same with the Sun. It produces massive amounts of heat which cannot travel through the vacuum of space. However, the electrons representing the heat produces EM and that EM can travel through space. The heat producing the EM is lost and that’s part of the reason the Sun is slowly cooling.
When the EM reaches us here on Earth, it is absorbed and converted back to heat, just as in a comm antenna or a transformer. The heat produced at the Sun is completely isolated from the heat produced by atoms in the Earth’s surface.
normie…”The bunch of your have no mind but it wont stop you from your idiot posting”.
***
The only idiot posting here at the moment seems to be you.
You said…” Objects cool by radiation therefore EMR transfers heat from one location to another”.
***
If an object cools by radiation, as I have claimed, where did the heat go? It is lost, right? And if heat is lost, how can EM transfer heat?
The problem is obvious, Normie, you have a high school understanding of science, if that, and after reading a few science textbooks, you think you are an expert.
Gordon Robertson
Sometimes I am a jerk but I do think you need a good kick to the arse once in awhile.
I think you have this strange view of energy.
Here are the various forms of energy. One form can change to another. The Quantity of energy is conserved.
https://physics.info/energy/
Kinetic Energy can transform into Potential energy in a Gravitational field and visa-versa.
The energy in an object that is the kinetic energy of vibrating molecules is transferred to EMR and the kinetic energy in the object is reduced. The energy that was kinetic has become EMR and it moving away from the object. It is still energy EMR is energy and when it reaches another object is can be converted into kinetic energy of vibrating molecules in another object. The energy is NOT lost. It is transferred from one object to another, the quantity remains the same.
Norman,
When radiation from the Earth’s surface reaches outer space, it is gone, the Earth has less. It has not been transferred to another object – until and unless it interacts with an electron.
You are confused by the use of terms like “kinetic energy” and “potential energy”, etc., which are conveniences dependent on a point of view.
The author of your link even quoted Feynman “For those who want some proof that physicists are human, the proof is is the idiocy of all the different units which they use for measuring energy.”
Photons possess energy. Photons do not obey Pauli’s exclusion principle. It is impossible to measure the energy contained in a certain space. This might seem odd, but photons can’t be shown to “exist”, until they interact with electrons.
For example, you have no idea of the number of photons emitted by radio transmitters around the globe travelling through your brain at the speed of light right at this moment, do you? Spooky!
You seem to be avoiding providing a description of the GHE which accords with fact, so I assume you are doing a SkyDragon dance known as the lateral arabesque – ie. divert attention away from reality by spouting vague nonsense.
You might as well carry on.
Swenson,
Can Earth’s geothermal heat and the energy from Sun, increase
the ocean’s average temperature, as to increase the average of ocean’s temperature [which it thought to currently have average temperature of about 3.5 C] ?
If so, what could increase the Ocean average temperature the most
over decades of time?
gbaikie,
Locally, yes, and of course this is observed from satellites as “oceanic hot-spots”.
But globally, no, as the Earth is cooling.
As the Earth continues to cool, ocean temperatures will continue to fall. As in the past, the oceans ceased to boil, and progressively cooled to their present temperatures.
The geothermal heat causes the oceans to be some 35 – 40 C hotter than would be possible if the Sun was the only source of energy, based on measurements. This more-or-less agrees with calculations putting the Earth’s surface temperature at 255 K or so, if geothermal heat is assumed to be zero, which SkyDragon cultists do.
Water issuing from hydrothermal vents exceeds 450 C, and water in direct contact with magma at mid-ocean ridges is a supercritical liquid at even higher temperatures, but rapidly cools to the temperature of the surrounding water, the temperature of which is raised in the process.
The mantle and crust are in constant chaotic motion, so predictions are really just guesses – trying to predict earthquakes is an example of the difficulty.
Everything changes. Always has, always will. Nature is both absurd and chaotic.
Still no GHE.
— Swenson says:
February 18, 2023 at 5:33 PM
gbaikie,
Locally, yes, and of course this is observed from satellites as oceanic hot-spots.
But globally, no, as the Earth is cooling.–
That’s I thought you would/could say – and that is correct in terms of the short history of 33.9 million years.
And seemingly more dramatic in term last 3 million years.
The general accepted story, is we have short period of warming and longer periods of cooling.
And you could say the overly optimistic hope, is as we return to colder periods, we could instead get crazy amounts of warming.
But I don’t think the longer colder periods are close to being “end of the world”. They could be fun.
“The geothermal heat causes the oceans to be some 35 40 C hotter than would be possible if the Sun was the only source of energy, based on measurements. ”
That similar to Zoe Phin view:
https://phzoe.com/author/phzoe/
She likes to call Earth, a star.
[I would tend to say is a very tiny and quite a cold star.]
And she doesn’t think the Sun warms Earth, much.
And so, your numbers could seem to align with her ideas.
“Still no GHE.”
If ocean was warmer- both average temperature and surface temperature. It seems 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter-
I would call it, a greenhouse effect.
Particularly because actual greenhouse used to the store thermal
of barrels water or other ways of storing water in a greenhouse
to stop a greenhouse from reaching freezing temps- or kept plants
from dying from freezing to death.
Though also used was active heating using various kinds of fuel.
I think if didn’t have oceanic geothermal heat the ocean could be
1 or 2 C colder. So, 3.5 – 1 = 2.5 C.
And ocean around 2 C seems to close to a snowball Earth.
I think one could various opinion about the average global temperature of a Snowball Earth.
Some imagine it’s runaway cooling thing.
And I think Mars global covered with snow is a warmer Mars.
But some people who believe in this runaway effect, might agree
with “35 40 C” colder.
maguff…”After the snow moves out of Colorado, a high pressure ridge will build providing a pleasant and mild weekend”.
***
Yes, but the next Wednesday, Denver is back down to -14C.
Where, oh where, could the warming be?
SSW affects temperatures in mid-latitudes.
https://i.ibb.co/k0sRFWs/gfs-T2ma-us-2.png
The 30 hPa temperature spike is now much higher than the summer average.
https://i.ibb.co/YB06kMd/pole30-nh.gif
Lowest Antarctic sea ice extent on record and still decreasing. Perhaps global warming is warming the Antarctic?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64649596
UAH data (above) says not
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/02/uah-sopol.jpeg
Sort of yearly averages of Antarctic sea ice extent for 1979-2022
2022: 10.57 (M km^2)
2017: 10.70
2019: 10.83
2018: 10.95
1986: 11.04
2002: 11.18
2016: 11.18
1980: 11.21
1983: 11.34
1997: 11.34
*
Pseudoskeptics love to say:
” It’s due to volcanic activity below the ice. ”
Yeah.
Source
https://tinyurl.com/4zte9fwt
The air temperature record from 1979 (UAH) shows that it has not moved much, if at all.
“NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
2015.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“2015”
Are you saying that only things since 2016 are valid?
No, Richard, I am saying that there may be a reason why you have found such an old cite, e.g.:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/03/18/antarctica-heat-wave-climate-change/
The site comes from more than half way between 1979 and today. The disparity is not noted from before its date.
Edit Site = Cite.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/02/uah-sopol.jpeg
UAH Antarctic data
Here is a cite that comes from three days ago:
> The area of sea ice around Antarctica has hit a record low, with scientists reporting never having seen such an extreme situation before. The ice extent is expected to shrink even further before this years summer melting season ends.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/15/antarctic-sea-ice-hits-record-low-climate-crisis
“scientists reporting never having seen such an extreme situation before”
We only have reliable scientific records of ice in the Antarctic since the satellite era.
We still know that the Antarctic once was a tropical paradise:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2148-5
Interestingly, during the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum (CTM), atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose to over 1,000 parts per million
Wonky Wee Willy,
Your “scientists” are delusional. or trying to mislead. Antarctica used to be blessed with a rich array of flora and fauna.
Maybe your “scientists” are obsessed with SkyDragon cult beliefs.
From the Washington Post propaganda piece –
“The excessive moisture from the atmospheric river was able to retain large amounts of heat, while the liquid-rich clouds radiated the heat down to the surface known as downward long-wave radiation.”
Id like to see these liquid rich clouds – must be made of special SkyDragon water, which remains liquid below freezing.
On the other hand, the “scientist” is covering his backside –
“”It would be very difficult to say that theres not a climate change fingerprint on an event like this,” he said.”. He really cant say that there is, or is not, a “fingerprint”?
What a dork – just like you!
Mike Flynn,
Please keep braying.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“the Antarctic once was a tropical paradise”
but was it then at the South Pole?
It is an expression, Richard.
[Gordon Robertson] ent…where does the heat go? Try to set aside this notion that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It’s a smug statement that is far too general in nature.
[Gordon Robertson] How can we talk about scientific matters when some are totally ignorant of the fundamentals of thermodynamics?
Translation: GR wants to “talk about scientific matters” while reserving the right to make the First Law of Thermodynamics optional to fit his narrative.
TM,
You must be joking.
You can’t even describe the GHE. What relevance does the “conservation of energy” have to the mythical GHE?
Provide your description of the GHE, your description of the conservation of energy, and try to relate one to the mythical other.
Delusional SkyDragon cultist run around shouting “Conservation of energy! Energy in equals energy out! Stop climate change!”, and all sorts of ridiculous nonsense.
As an example, when energy out exceeds energy (as is the case with the Earth over the past four and a half billion years), cooling results. Go on, tell me how this contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics, while I laugh loudly in your face!
Too embarrassed to even try? You are not quite as stupid as you appear, obviously – or maybe it is just animal cunning.
Mike Flynn,
You must be braying:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Keep braying!
Willard, let me know when you have posted the same link 50 times.
Right after you tell me when you asked for the 500,000th time fthat we serve you that silly sammich, Mike.
yep there in here promoting sammiches and when you ask for one they are always out of stock.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You mean this sammich:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Gill?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yet another duplicate error message…
maguff…maybe if you understood the 1st law you might be able to understand what I have been getting at. It is not, and was never intended to be a conservation of energy law. It simply addresses heat, work, and internal energy in a system. Naturally, they must balance but what are they balancing with internally?
Clausius contributed the U part, the internal energy, and he described it as partly heat and partly work. In other words, vibrating atoms in a solid do work through their vibrations and heat is required to maintain and increase the vibration.
The tendency today is to regard internal energy as some kind of mysterious energy whereas it is obviously a combined internal heat and work. It has to be, the 1st law describes the relationship between external heat and work and internal heat and work. What other energies could there be? The equation has to balance internal energy with external energy, and if external energy is heat and/or work, then the internal energy has to be the same.
Modern scientists have out-smarted themselves by arbitrarily re-defining internal energy as plain old energy without qualifying what the energy is. They wave their arms in the air talking about a generic energy without having the slightest idea what form it takes.
You can fill your boots applying the 1st law to the atmosphere all you like but good luck. And why would you want to when the Ideal Gas Law does it better? Since no work is being done by air molecules on air molecules in the atmosphere, the 1st law is reduced to heat in/out and internal heat.
The atmosphere is one of the only environments where you can input heat to a system and have it dissipate due to rising into the negative pressure gradient created by gravity. Remember, I am talking about an ideal atmosphere with no convection. My model is completely static albeit with a pressure gradient.
There is no point using the 1st law when the IGL does it better by being far more specific as to pressure, temperature and volume. I realize you can modify the 1st law to use P,V and T but why complicate matters when all you want is a ballpark description?
All I am trying to do is give a subjective description of how heat can dissipate without being converted to another form of energy. Lindzen commented in his interview with Jordam Peterson that scientists pre 1920s often gave subjective descriptions. Today, the tendency is offer only math and that results in people losing tract of the basics.
As Feynman said, and Bohm said something similar, if you cannot explain an equation, you don’t understand the subject.
I understand the First Law of Thermodynamics perfectly well, and more broadly, the fundamental principle of physics that is the law of conservation of energy.
You on the other hand don’t seem to grasp its meaning.
Furthermore, the ideal gas law is an equation of state (EOS), it describes a particular state of the system (P, V, T). Conservation of energy on the other hand describes the system’s evolution between states.
A system evolving from a state 1 to a state 2 is described as follows:
ΔU = U2 – U1 = dQ – dW
The EOS describes the system at 1 as U1 = U1(P1, V1, T1), and at 2 as U2 = U2(P2, V2, T2), but it doesn’t tell you how it evolved. Conservation of energy tells you whether it gained/lost heat or performed/received mechanical work.
This is basic knowledge.
TM,
You really are a clueless SkyDragon, aren’t you? No wonder you are so coy about describing the First Law of Thermodynamics – “Another common phrasing is that ” energy can neither be created nor destroyed” (in a “closed system”).” – Wikipedia.
Maybe you could reinforce your SkyDragon cultist beliefs, and say that “the Earth” (whatever that means) is such a “closed system”?
Of course not – that would be silly, wouldn’t it? Just as silly as trying to describe the “greenhouse effect” in a way that reflects reality.
You don’t understand the First Law of Thermodynamics perfectly, do you? Or even imperfectly, by the look of your comments.
Go on, tell me I’m wrong – and why, of course. Feel free to throw in a few facts, if you like.
A must read for all.
To of the most highly qualified atmospheric scientists provide testimony on SEC rule making regarding fossil fuels. A must read for all interested in the topic.
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20132171-302668.pdf
Of particular interest to this post of Roy’s can be found in Section J and in particular the graph of data for USCHN.
Hottest days on land, means drier land. Which means global cooling which is drier air. Of course we getting global warming which means wetter land.
A wetter Sahara desert is a higher average temperature of Sahara, but
not having hotter daylight times.
Dry deserts have hot daytime, and a cold night times- they have wide temperature extremes. Non deserts have less swings in temperature.
Oceans have very little swings in temperature, the tropical Ocean has an average temperature of about 26 C, it daytime high rarely reaches
30 C. And tropical island could have a higher temperature- land heats up faster. In interior of large tropical island could commonly get a high of 35 C if it’s surface is dry. Tropical land is more uniform temperature.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/02/uah-tropics.jpeg
UAH tropics (land and ocean) data
Comments for The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors
[Release No. 33-11042; File No. S7-10-22]
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022.htm
Exxon Mobil Corporation. Irving, Texas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DFEclImpI
SpaceX Starship breaks records before LAUNCH!! How will the journey continue?
Starship is not going to priced at $10 per lb, But SpaceX could charge what could be said to equal to $10 per lb to LEO, if people
are going to Mars. But it would like buy one and get one free type
thing. Whereas not sell payload to anyone for anything going to LEO
for $10 per lb.
Costs might approach $10 per lb, but I doubt it. Of course another thing, one get govt subsidy or something like that.
But some launch system might able to do it. Or prices of everything could continue lower- so rocket fuel is cheaper and etc.
But if gets to $500 per lb, it changes everything. And more significant is price could to get to Mars could be around $2000 per lb, whereas moment it’s around $100,000 per lb [or much more].
Anyhow, video mostly about new deluge system.
As I have said, Spacex should use copper pipes.
Nobody is going to Mars
How about Crimea?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Everyone is going to the Moon
I think becoming space faring civilization, is important.
And I believe in saying, God wants humans to become a space faring
civilization, and that is why we have a moon.
When in Cold war, US had race with Soviets, to be first to land people on the Moon [and safely return them to Earth] and won the race. It was an important race, it required a significant amount exploration of the Moon, to do it. And require the development of technology to do it. And US brought back tons of lunar material.
And you call that exploration of the Moon, but was mostly a race or
it was mostly PR thing. I would say it was the cheapest war effort, ever done. Or a war effect, which was quite successful.
Though maybe, you could say, it was so successful, a side effect, is it broke people’s minds. And Pols said if we can that war, we do other wars, such as, war on Poverty and the war on Drugs.
Needless to say, these wars didn’t work.
Anyways, we are finally going explore the Moon, soon. And seems US
politicians, have actually done some work- they are involving a lot countries in the effort.
Don’t know how going to pan out, but even before this, Space was ever increasingly becoming an international thing. One might even say international interest in the Moon, caused NASA and US congress, to more urgent about exploring the Moon.
So with US got explore the Moon first, and then explore Mars.
Mars is much harder to do.
gbaikie says:
And Pols said if we can that war, we do other wars, such as, war on Poverty and the war on Drugs.
Needless to say, these wars didnt work.
——————————
Well the wars with bad strategies didn’t work. What did work was free enterprise and the exploitation of fossil fuels. Worked so well that for a while it looked like the democrats might go out of business. But now with the children of the folks that it worked for are looking for elevators rather than chips in the granite and well placed pitons.
What happens to the stratospheric polar vortex.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_MEAN_JFM_NH_2023.png
What’s happening to stratospheric ozone in the Northern Hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/1mnrgK7/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Large parts of Australia are set to swelter through another heatwave in the coming days with hot weather warnings in place across the country.
The Bureau of Meteorology is forecasting heatwaves around Australia from Thursday, with warnings already in place in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/15/australia-heatwave-hot-weather-warnings-east-coast-thursday
Is there heavy cloud cover in Queensland?
https://i.ibb.co/0YBR4tS/gfs-T2ma-aus-2.png
Do you believe in miracles?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/tornado-poland-dobrzyca-damage-latest-b2017990.html
Only if you stop posting.
Then you might like:
> Research scientists on ships along Antarcticas west coast said their recent voyages have been marked by an eerily warm ocean and record-low sea ice coverageextreme climate conditions, even compared to the big changes of recent decades, when the region warmed much faster than the global average.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12022023/antarctic-ice-shelves-marine-heatwave/
Willard,
You can find much more scary things. For example – “The Antarctic Peninsula, particularly the West coast of the Peninsula is warming at a rate about 10 times faster than the global average.”
This begs the question “what parts of the world have cooled, to maintain the global average?” After all, the “average” consists of colder than average, and hotter than average.
Maybe the “average” doesn’t mean what you think it means!
Or is SkyDragon mathematics somehow different from ordinary mathematics?
Dimwit.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Keep begging, you are good at begging.
Mike Flynn,
What are you begging about?
Keep braying.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson
UAH shows the average is increasing by 0.13C/decade. You don’t need cooling areas.
UAH in the Antarctic shows no or little warming since 1979.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/02/uah-sopol.jpeg
When it comes to climate change monitoring we are like little children exploring the outdoors for the first time. I have been doing it for almost 80 years almost all along or on the sea and not a day goes by where I don’t discover something I had never seen before.
Oh, Gill.
You and your unauditable war stories.
RLH
Please explain the scientific case why you expect UAH in the Antarctic to be warming.
Something like this, perhaps.
https://www.science.org/content/article/rising-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-actually-cools-part-antarctica
Because it used to be said that Antarctica was closer to the truth about how the planet was warming. Something about having less warming factors.
“Many long-term measurements from Antarctic research stations show no significant warming or cooling trends, and temperatures over most of the continent have been relatively stable over the past few decades.”
UAH data since 1979 just confirms this.
EM,
You wrote –
“Swenson
UAH shows the average is increasing by 0.13C/decade. You dont need cooling areas.”
Fair point. However, if Antarctica, say, is rising at 1.3 C/decade, in conjunction with all the other areas which are reported as warming twice as fast or three times as fast as the rest of the world, then the “rest of the world” must be really, really large to maintain the purported 0.13 C/decade, and warming at much less than 0.13 C/decade.
In the case of Antarctica, 1.3 C/decade is 13 C/century, or 130 C/millennium, so in less than 500 years Antarctica will be ice free, populated, with vast arable areas. Unfortunately, I suppose the seas will be too hot to sustain life (a la Bindidon), so we’ll all be dead anyway!
Sounds like a load of codswallop to me, but SkyDragons live in abject fear of approaching Thermageddon. Let them worry twice as hard on my behalf. My care factor remains zero.
Keep worrying – it won’t do you any good, you know.
“However, if Antarctica, say, is rising at 1.3 C/decade”
There is no evidence of any air temperature rise in Antarctica, by UAH or anyone else.
RLH
Swenson said initially
“This begs the question what parts of the world have cooled, to maintain the global average?”
The UAH warming rate of 0.13C/decade applies to the global average. I don’t know why Swenson is applying it to Antarctica.
If you go into the literature you will find that the scientists expect the Antarctic peninsula and the ends of coastal glaciers like Thwaites to warm.But these are not the South Pole.
The South Pole itself is on top of a 3000metre thick ice cap, close up to the tropopause. The winds mostly descend from the tropopause and blow Northwards. It is in darkness for months each Winter and on the cooling side of the current Milankovich cycle. It is isolated from the rest of the climate system by its polar vortex, the circumpolar current and the Southern Ocean. Finally it has been affected by ozone depletion.
Nobody, except yourself, expects the South Pole to show much change. It is, in the most literal sense, the last place on Earth where you would expect global warming.
EM,
Earlier, you wrote –
“UAH shows the average is increasing by 0.13C/decade. You don’t need cooling areas.”, and you didn’t seem to like me mentioning that some SkyDragon propaganda has Antarctica warming much faster than the “global average”.
Here’s a quote from nature climate change –
“Over the last three decades, the South Pole has experienced a record-high statistically significant warming of 0.61 0.34 C per decade, more than three times the global average.”
You wrote “Nobody, except yourself, expects the South Pole to show much change. It is, in the most literal sense, the last place on Earth where you would expect global warming.”
It seems that according to peer-reviewed research, some SkyDragons are claiming warming at the South Pole. Maybe you are referring to another South Pole?
Willard says:
Oh, Gill.
You and your unauditable war stories.
———————
For sure Willard if you are a indoor city dwelling flatlander and not the lead dog the view never does change.
Show us your homework, Gill.
As far as I’m concerned you’re just Bordon’s evil twin.
Tucker Carslon- The Climate Cult has Grown Stronger
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/18/tucker-carslon-the-climate-cult-has-grown-stronger/
When religions weaken, others grow.
The AI religion has been taking beating, recently.
Solar wind
speed: 426.7 km/sec
density: 4.88 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 86
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 343 sfu
Updated 18 Feb 2023
[It seems someone made a large mistake]
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.84×10^10 W Warm
Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×10^10 W Cold (02/2009)
Hmm, that is record high Thermosphere Climate Index
when was our thermosphere been as energized?
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2022/03/23/what-is-tci/
According that graph, well over a decade, since in was warm
and according above, 1957 Oct, since was the hottest recorded.
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.6% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.0%
Somewhat large coronal hole near southern polar region, and somewhat
medium hole near equator.
two moderate sunspots have been arriving from farside, and two small spots are going to farside. I don’t any tiny spots which might grow-
Or we going stay around same sunspot number for next few days
And so Feb is going sideway but at higher level then was going sideways for many months earlier. It seem to it spend a lot less time going sideway, jump up, though I doubt as dramatic of jump as Jan, but then go sideway for long time, more than 1/2 a year, and crash and continue crashing quickly and arrive at solar min conditions.
” [It seems someone made a large mistake] ”
Indeed.
18.02.23
SSN (estimate): 119
F10.7 (URSI): 146.3
Solar wind
speed: 423.3 km/sec
density: 11.12 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 112
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 169 sfu
Updated 20 Feb 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.44×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.2% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.4%
A number of sunspots are about going to farside
and so sunspot number will lower- and could stay
quite low.
Solar wind
speed: 433.1 km/sec
density: 6.35 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 106
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 161 sfu
Updated 22 Feb 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.50×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Below Average
48-hr change: -2.2%
Big coronal hole
Solar wind
speed: 553.4 km/sec
density: 12.58 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 108
“Growing sunspot AR3234 poses an increasing threat
for strong M-class solar flares.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 148 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.49×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.1%
Big coronal hole at Equator and
another big one near south polar region.
“A DANGEROUS SUNSPOT: Active sunspot AR3234 is not only turning toward Earth, but also growing rapidly. This 48-hour movie from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory shows AR3234 quadrupling in size as it comes around the solar limb:”
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Spots growing and small ones appearing.
Solar wind
speed: 421.1 km/sec
density: 3.62 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 130
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 164 sfu
Updated 25 Feb 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 22.02×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.1%
Solar wind
speed: 693.2 km/sec
density: 1.18 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 120
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 159 sfu
Updated 27 Feb 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 22.68×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.2%
Our work shows that for much of the Holocene, the Ross Sea was less icy and presumably warmer than it is today and this warmth may have driven retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet from the Ross Sea during the last 8,000 years and future warming could continue to push ice retreat, Hall says. However, ocean temperature may not be the entire story.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/02/18/elephant-seal-remains-show-antarctic-sea-was-warmer-in-the-mid-to-late-holocene/
Well, I think it’s entire story. More quotes:
“The results from the molted skin, bones and other remains showed that southern elephant seals not only once occupied the Ross Sea, but were present on the Victoria Land Coast from about 7,000 and 500 years ago. The presence of the seals at this time indicated that there was a reduced amount of ice covering the sea during this time of the Holocene, which coincides with other records of ocean temperatures and circulation in the Ross Sea.”
“Seven years ago, Heterodox Academy (HxA) came on the scene to promote ideological diversity in academia. Cofounder Jonathan Haidta prominent social psychologist who is now chair of the board of directors and the person most associated with the organizationspoke forcefully about the scholarship-corrupting effects of liberal groupthink. The leaders of HxA led people to believe that they were going to organize a meaningful resistance.
Seven years later, you can count HxAs accomplishments in promoting heterodoxy on the fingers of zero hands. It has focused mainly on aggrandizing celebrity academics who hold conventional leftist views, and giving a platform to liberals to engage in empty virtue signaling about their alleged commitment to free inquiry. Scholars whose work is genuinely heterodox have been systematically marginalized.”
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/35/4/four-reasons-why-heterodox-academy-failed
Linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Seven years of bad luck- who broke the mirror?
–Wokeism as Religion
One of the reasons we got into this situation in the first place is because of the shortsightedness of previous generations of self-styled heterodox thinkers. For decades if not centuries, skeptics and freethinkers trained their guns on religion, and especially on belief in an anthropomorphic God. The words skeptic and freethinker can both literally be used as synonyms for atheist. The prominent New Atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett says that atheists should be known as brights, apparently regardless of any beliefs they hold outside the domain of religion.7 It rarely occurred to such self-congratulatory brights that there were other issues of comparable importance, or that much of what they didnt like about religion was an expression of general human tendencies that, in the absence of belief in God, would re-emerge in new forms. Wokeism, or social justice, is what has replaced Christianity among the ruling class in the West.–
Wokeism is dying- people tend to kill the dying.
As a philosopher, I blame philosophy- and philosophy never dies- it’s
Harry Potter’s endless “dark arts”- every changing.
> As a philosopher
Big if true.
Wishful Wee Willy,
“Philosopher – a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment.” – Merriam-Webster.
So go on, tell everybody why you doubt gbaikie (by using your usual slimy language of innuendo).
[chortle]
What are you braying about, Nike Flynn?
https://dailynous.com/2020/06/24/controversy-philosophical-psychology-leads-editors-resignation/
Wishful Wee Willy,
Philosopher a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment. Merriam-Webster.
So go on, tell everybody why you doubt gbaikie (by using your usual slimy language of innuendo).
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
If you knew anything about Nathan, you’d know that he’s not making the claim you suggest he’s making.
Enjoy your sabbatical.
It is Time to Bury the Grand Solar Minimum Myth
By Javier Vins
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/18/it-is-time-to-bury-the-grand-solar-minimum-myth/
“Fourteen years ago, a new climate myth was born. A grand solar minimum (GSM) was in the making that would not only reverse global warming but plunge the planet into a new Little Ice Age, surprising the warming alarmists and causing undue suffering. The time has come to bury that myth.”
I am perhaps going say something “unfair”, He thinks Jan’s up tick
in sunspots, disproves it.
But, anyhow what do you think?
As said above, I am guessing we get say 6 month of higher levels than
Jan solar activity.
Also we have today:
Record of
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.8410^10 W Warm
And would guess we will many days, say more than a dozen where we
have higher than 22 x 10^10 W on terms Thermosphere
Climate Index.
And all this, doesn’t tell me, we not in Solar Grand Min.
But 25 cycle could “break” the solar grand min, but if not
broken, still need to see cycle 26, for it to count as Solar Grand
Min.
And in future we look back and be able to say went thru Solar Grand Min, I don’t think it [the 3 solar cycles] will necessarily have much measurable effect on Global climate average temperature.
Though I would guess it should effect, weather.
And more importantly, it will have a significant effect upon Crew Mars exploration.
And to nullify a significant effect upon Crew Mars exploration, we will have send crew to Mars, faster than 6 months.
The fastest has been 7 months, and Musk say can do in 6 months, and I don’t think that is fast enough- for crew. Most mass send to Mars is not crew.
Cargo payload can be 8 months or more than a year.
Though one send crew on starship with lots radiation shielding, but if there is choice of less radiation shielding but 1/2 the time- 1/2 the time, seems like better deal. And someone other than SpaceX, might be able to deliver that deal. Or say Bezos could deliver it.
Hopefully, New Glenn launches this year.
Yes, we are currently experiencing peak solar activity.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite.png
https://i.ibb.co/4tYb3gW/EISNcurrent.png
Yes, but I am just guessing that after a lull it will get more of
a peak, which last for few months to say 6 months, and then crash- making peak in the 25 solar max, very short.
And so not very long in future, we will get an “alarming crash”.
I don’t buy Scott Adams sim thing, but nevertheless in his words, it could be most interesting kind story to get.
It just my guess and I would like to hear other different guesses.
Or where are going to be in a year?
Still bouncing near the top, like a normal solar cycle.
Or say crash soon, and bounce about at low level and go up again.
Or just stay low.
Or have the greatest cycle of all known cycles, destroying the dumb idea we have ended the grand solar cycle of last century.
Yeah!
” He thinks Jans up tick in sunspots, disproves it. ”
1. You do not seem to know Javier very well.
2. You didn’t read his article.
This is what he means:
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Figure-5-1.png
Javier is an experienced person who – unlike some pretentious ignoramuses posting here – very well knows that when you want to achieve valuable predictions, you can’t solely rely on the present: you first have to ‘dissect the past’.
I like that projection, it would better outcome, in terms Mars exploration.
And I said, “I am perhaps going say something unfair, He thinks Jans up tick in sunspots, disproves it.
So, nothing proves we are in solar grand minimum or not in solar grand minimum. One even can’t say we have ended the higher solar activity of last century, yet.
Practically nothing in 6 month, is going prove any of the above.
Javier, Clilverds model, nor Zharkova have been proven.
But Clilverds model, if correct would indicate an end of century of higher solar activity. One could say the grand solar Max, has ended.
And we have Grand solar min, and followed by not Solar Grand Max,
but more normal/typical solar cycles. which leads may another Solar Grand min which could be more significant then the Grand Min we might be in now.
If solar grand min have any effect upon global climate, Clilverds model indicates more in direction another Little Ice Age, quicker than I would guessed or is more cooling than Zharkova is solar model is predicting.
But everyone agrees that solar activity alone doesn’t explain the Little Ice age. Nor even both solar activity and higher volcanic activity by itself is not particularly convincing- or roughly more details are needed.
Or as I said, explaining the cooling of Little Ice Age, needs to be
done. But that it was coolest in last few thousands years, is pretty much a fact.
“1. You do not seem to know Javier very well.”
You have mind read me, pretty good. I read a bit him, I would guess
he thinks we going to get more cooling than I would guess we are.
“2. You didnt read his article.”
I have not pay a lot attention to his various articles- I didn’t spend much time looking at that article. So, again pretty good mind reading.
I was more interested in what you said about it.
Psychopaths Appear to Possess a Mysterious Evolutionary Benefit
“When you start to notice them, psychopaths seem to be everywhere. This is especially true of people in powerful places.
By one estimate, as many as 20 percent of business leaders have “clinically relevant levels” of psychopathic tendencies despite the fact as little as 1 percent of the general population are considered psychopaths. Psychopaths are characterized by shallow emotions, a lack of empathy, immorality, anti-social behavior and, importantly, deceptiveness.”
https://www.sciencealert.com/psychopaths-appear-to-possess-a-mysterious-evolutionary-benefit
Well, power corrupt, absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
Does anyone imagine this law, doesn’t manifest into a physical condition which can’t measured?
Does anyone think Nazis were born, rather than nurtured and created?
But I don’t think there is as many as 20 percent of business leaders, but I might believe 20 percent or more in terms politicians, and longer they have been in office, the higher it gets.
There are reasons for wanting term limits.
One should also check out the upper management of FBI- it is probably a higher number than US Senate.
Troll Swenson wrote:
“TM,
You really are a clueless SkyDragon, aren’t you? No wonder you are so coy about describing the First Law of Thermodynamics “Another common phrasing is that ” energy can neither be created nor destroyed” (in a “closed system”).” Wikipedia.
Maybe you could reinforce your SkyDragon cultist beliefs, and say that “the Earth” (whatever that means) is such a “closed system”?
Of course not that would be silly, wouldn’t it? Just as silly as trying to describe the “greenhouse effect” in a way that reflects reality.
You don’t understand the First Law of Thermodynamics perfectly, do you? Or even imperfectly, by the look of your comments.
Go on, tell me I’m wrong and why, of course. Feel free to throw in a few facts, if you like.”
There are three types of thermodynamic systems.
A Closed System: is one that can exchange energy but not matter with its surroundings. For all intents and purposes THE EARTH IS A CLOSED SYSTEM. https://ibb.co/ys8PS3C
An Open System: is one that can exchange both matter and energy with its surroundings.
An Isolated System: is one that cannot exchange matter or energy with its surroundings.
You can read what NASA (that’s the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) has to say about it here: https://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/basic-page/systems-thinking-about-earth-system. Or not.
Cope, or seethe even, it makes no difference.
Flynnson is an arrogant and ignorant twat.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bindidon the keeper of the sacred sacraments makes yet another contribution to science.
EM,
“With respect to energy, Earth is an open system. Sunlight energy flows in and heat energy escapes. ENERGY FLOWS: The functioning of our planet relies on a constant input of energy from the sun.”
“It is accepted science that the Earth is an open system for energy. Energy radiates into the Earth’s system, mainly from the sun.”
“According to the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Earth is an Open System. It receives incoming energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation, . . . “.
. . . and so on.
You are too coy to acknowledge the description of the First Law of Thermodynamics. The Earth is not a closed system, even NASA in your link states “Any system within the Earth system is considered an open system. Because energy flows freely into and out of systems, all systems respond to inputs and, as a result, have outputs.”
Unfortunately, your NASA SkyDragons also state that the amount of energy leaving the Earth System equals the amount entering the system, showing that they are either ignorant or stupid.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. The system is not even closed as far as matter is concerned – the Earth receives matter from outside in the form of meteorites, space dust etc., and loses matter in the form of atmosphere continuously. It may have even lost a rather large chink of matter in the form of the Moon, due to an impact with an even larger chunk of matter.
So, no coping or seething necessary on my part.
You remain an ignorant SkyDragon, oblivious to reality, trying to preach a Greenhouse Effect which you can’t describe – because it doesn’t exist.
Appealing to authorities equally as ignorant as yourself just makes you look even more stupid.
YES, “Any system WITHIN THE EARTH SYSTEM is considered an open system.”
Thank you for making my point.
Now go away!
EM,
You wrote –
“Now go away!” Oooooh, a fit of petulance? And if I don’t, will you stamp your little foot, throw yourself to the ground, and have a tantrum?
Maybe you could spend your your time more profitably by trying to describe the GHE!
Oh well.
EM?
You are seething aren’t you!
Can’t even keep your replies straight.
EM, TM, delusional SkyDragon, what’s the difference?
You still refuse to accept that the Earth is an open system thermodynamically, and has cooled for four and a half billion years?
Oh well, you might even be convinced that you know what you are talking about.
Others can decide for themselves – it makes no difference to physical reality, does it?
What are you braying about, Mike?
EM is EM, Tyson is Tyson, and you are Mike Flynn.
Even you should get that!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
It is clear that you’re struggling to understand the definitions of the three basic thermodynamic systems.
Your name calling and general verbal abuse will not help you understand any of this. You need to admit your handicap, and then take the time to think about these concepts.
TM,
You wrote –
“It is clear that youre struggling to understand the definitions of the three basic thermodynamic systems.”
The Earth is an open system from the perspective of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
It exchanges both matter and energy with the outside. Maybe you don’t accept mass/energy equivalence, and remain firmly rooted in the 19th century.
No problem. Others are free to take their own views.
Physical reality won’t change one jot.
By the way, I noticed you completely ignore addressing my first three quotes about the Earth being a thermodynamic “open system”. Why is that? Why do you stick to NASA SkyDragon nonsense which is demonstrably wrong – in denial of physical reality?
Religious zealotry?
Your quotes clearly describe the Earth as a closed system.
Did you not understand your own quotes?
Like I said, thanks for making my point!
First quote –
“With respect to energy, Earth is an open system. Sunlight energy flows in and heat energy escapes. ENERGY FLOWS: The functioning of our planet relies on a constant input of energy from the sun.”
Your statement –
“Your quotes clearly describe the Earth as a closed system.”
Obviously, delusional SkyDragons like you mentally redefine “open” as “closed”!
Not even a good attempt at perverting reality. Try harder next time.
Again you imbecile, from my earlier post:
A Closed System: is one that can exchange energy but not matter with its surroundings. For all intents and purposes THE EARTH IS A CLOSED SYSTEM. https://ibb.co/ys8PS3C
An Open System: is one that can exchange both matter and energy with its surroundings.
Your quote:
“With respect to energy,…”
SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
TM,
Once again, from your delusional “authority” –
“The Earth is a closed system: energy from sunlight enters and “no” matter enters or leaves (except for the rare meteorite)” – and anything else, like space dust, a Moon . . .
In other words, in the best SkyDragon tradition, “no” doesn’t really mean no!
It doesnt matter. Energy is free to enter and leave the Earth system, and energy is equivalent to matter – e=mc2, much to the surprise of SkyDragons who think the Earth is a closed system. It isn’t.
At least you seem to accept that the Earth is “open” in respect to energy, which means that “energy budgets” claiming that “energy in” equals “energy out” is a SkyDragon delusion, held by reality denying zealots who just refuse to believe that the Earth has cooled since it had a molten surface!
Carry on trying to convince others that your fantasies are superior to fact.
Swenson,
Here’s another First Law for you, it’s The first law of holes. It states: if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
So you think that Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence makes the Earth a thermodynamic open system. Well, it doesn’t.
E = mc^2 does not mean that mass and energy are the same thing. Mass and energy are equivalent in the sense that they can be converted into each other, but they are not identical. Mass is a property of matter that determines its resistance to acceleration, while energy is a property of a system that enables it to do work or produce heat.
You have to learn to walk before you can run. Learn the basics first before moving to the more advanced topics.
Since you raised the issue of energy budgets:
Given that Energy in – Energy out = Accumulation, there are three possible outcomes:
(1) if Energy in = Energy out, then Accumulation = 0 and the system is in a steady state.
(2) If Energy in > Energy out, then Accumulation > 0 and the system is heating up.
(3) If Energy in < Energy out, then Accumulation < 0 and the system is cooling down.
Can you guess which one describes the GHE? Note that this is not an IQ test.
Swenson,
I wrote earlier, Cope, or seethe even, it makes no difference.
You’ve chosen the latter, and your still a troll.
I was right again!
Well I think a question could what happens if sun doesn’t shine for
6 months.
Though not shining for a month might have more agreement or seems
easier to guess.
I don’t think much happens with Venus if Sun doesn’t shine for a month, but 6 months could a lot different- and it seems it would have lasting effect.
Earth wouldn’t much lasting effect with 1 month or 6 months.
Which kind interesting, I tend to think of Venus as fortress- but if
you block the sun for 6 months, it could bring down the fortress.
Or fortress with fairly short duration to hold up against a siege-
I guess all fortresses have weak points.
EM,
I have to inform you that whoever suggested you could read minds is full of it.
By the way, what did you win? Anything of value? Did anyone else enter the competition?
By the way, writing “Youve chosen the latter, and your still a troll.” might indicate to others that whatever you “won”, it certainly wasn’t an English expression competition.
I think you meant “you’re” – an abbreviation for “you are”, rather than the possessive adjective “your” , but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Once you have overcome your unfounded glee at having been “right” again, of course!
Are you still convinced that Earth could not have cooled from a molten state because it is a closed system, or that energy out equals energy in, or some similar twaddle?
Carry on.
Swenson say:
”You are too coy to acknowledge the description of the First Law of Thermodynamics. The Earth is not a closed system, even NASA in your link states ”Any system within the Earth system is considered an open system. Because energy flows freely into and out of systems, all systems respond to inputs and, as a result, have outputs.” ”
This is a key point regarding the disinformation that academia primarily has foisted on the public that there is a greenhouse effect purely as a result of the radiation effects of greenhouse gases.
NASA, NOAA, any credible scientist knows thats not the case. Yet they allow the charade to continue because their intent isn’t to inform their intent is to achieve political aims.
At the bottom of all this one can always tell a liar by how many lies the liar is willing to tolerate.
I don’t know if Tyson is educated enough to have figured this out, but I can say that the general public has an excellent nose for a liar.
The fact is and it is very clear it is the case, that the science on the GHE is highly politicized and most of the public knows it without even knowing all the science. Why? Because its all the spew people hear. They hear spew rather than facts and they know the difference.
Some people are simply more easily conned by Madison Avenue type advertising than others.
GHG are a necessary component of the GHE but in themselves do not arise to a sufficient component and because of that the fodder fed to the public does not meet the smell test. Any decent scientist should know that.
This whole deal arose out of a world that has few things to worry about. And by the people with the least things to worry about. Its a world turned on its head politically. Akin maybe to the fall of Rome. We need a way to fix that or those Russian and Chinese disinformation providers will.
We as a nation have been successful because we created an avenue by which the least fortunate can become the most fortunate, if an only if they are willing to devote their lives to it. The only alternative to that world is a world where its purely dependent upon who you know rather than what you know.
So as a nation our only hope of survival is to tell the Barbara Streisands, Leonardo Di Caprias, and Lebron James’ NO its not all about you. And unless we do that we could be in some deep shit.
McGoofin should write a book on thermodynamics. He’s brilliant.
Thermo is just another tool in the engineer’s toolkit. You should try it, it’s fun.
TM,
You are just another tool – like every other delusional SkyDragon.
Have you managed to find a description of the GHE yet?
How hard can it be?
I am glad you ask, Mike.
Again.
So here it is:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
Again.
Troll Swenson wrote:
“EM,
You wrote
“Now go away!” Oooooh, a fit of petulance? And if I don’t, will you stamp your little foot, throw yourself to the ground, and have a tantrum?”
I started this sub-thread show why Gordon Robertson’s cavalier suggestion that the principle of conservation of energy can just be “set aside’ was wrong.
You barged in with your usual abusive trolling.
Gordon Robertson went away without any substantial or relevant rebuttal.
Having accomplished my objective, I don’t care what you do; cope, or seethe even.
P.s.: EM = TM, no?
TM,
TM = EM = any delusional, ignorant SkyDragon. Thank you for pointing it out.
I’m glad you don’t care what I do – you are coming to grips with reality. I do wonder why you would would say “Now go away”, if you don’t care what I do.
This is presently a public forum, so you are quite free to spout any nonsense you like. You also have to accept the reality that I comment as I wish, and when I wish, and there is nothing you can do about it.
You can’t even come up with a description of the GHE which accords with fact! All your attempts at diversion, based on appeals to your own anonymous authority may be applauded by other members of the SkyDragon cult, but may be laughed at, derided, or totally ignored by others. Maybe you could just lurch from stupidity to stupidity, and declaim loudly “Im right again!”, “I won!”, and hope that somebody cares.
What do you think?
Tyson McGuffin says:
You barged in with your usual abusive trolling.
—————————–
Come on Tyson if you really thought anyone was a troll you would do the only smart thing you can do. . . .ignore and move on. You aren’t stupid. You are getting off on it.
Gill, Gill,
By your logic PSTing would be self-defeating.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Will the SpaceX Starship fly to space soon?
by Mark R. Whittington, opinion contributor – 02/19/23 10:00 AM ET
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3864570-will-the-spacex-starship-fly-to-space-soon/
“When Starship flies, sooner or later, it will be one of the most impressive events in a long time, whatever happens. Shotwell stated that SpaceXs ambition for the first orbital test is to not blow up. Considering the size of the Starship/Superheavy system, that is a sensible wish that hopefully will be the reality.”
And:
“When he was a United States senator, Nelson seemed hostile to the idea of commercial space in general and SpaceX in particular. Since then, he has undergone a conversion experience as profound as that of St. Paul on the road to Damascus.
The question now is, what comes next?”
I thought Nelson would be a good choice- but we aren’t at finish line, yet.
According to NOAA there has been no warming in the lower 48 since 1895. How can CO2 increase 30% and not cause any warming in the US?
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0
How can that happen? Russian Disinformation.
A quick inspection suggests that recent figures are about 1.5C warmer than the 1800s values.An anomaly change from -1C to 0.5C.
It would be nice to see a proper statistical analysis.
Dec 2022 -0.72C -0.61C
Nov 2022 -1.17C -1.25C
Dec 1899 -1.51C —
Nov 1899 1.08C —
Not sure you can claim any trend at all from that data. Facts are, recent temperature are substantially below some of the levels reached back in the late 1800s. What you have is volatility…but no trend. CO2 isn’t volatile.
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
It is estimated that 3.3 million US adults were displaced from their homes in 2022 due to the severity of weather events such as hurricanes, floods, or fires. Of this total, nearly one in six residents never returned to their homes.
The UK recorded an increase of 638 more deaths on July 19, 2022, due to the heat event when temperatures rose above 40C for the first time. And cyclone Gabrielle is now wreaking havoc across New Zealand as the worst storm recorded in a century.
A primary contributor to these weather disruptions is the increase in average global temperatures, 2022 being recorded as the warmest Irish year on record since 1900 with an average temperature of 10.8C.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-41071577.html
“In total there were 1,047 excess winter deaths caused by living in cold damp homes in England in December 2022, this is up from 768 in December 2021. In December 2020 there were 1,518.
Over the course of the whole of winter 2021/22 there were 2,731 excess winter deaths in England caused by living in cold damp homes.”
https://www.endfuelpoverty.org.uk/over-1000-dead-in-december-2022-due-to-cold-homes/
Global warming is mostly about having a warmer winter.
UK is a high heating costs as compared to US, higher cost of energy
will kill people.
But Costs and But the Poor are boring, gb, but your extrapolation is:
That’s from “Excess winter mortality in England and Wales: 2020 to 2021 (provisional) and 2019 to 2020 (final)”
Something tells me that the extrapolation from your favorite fossil fuel megaphone would deserve due diligence, considering that these numbers might yet to have been released.
More importantly, how many do you think will die to go on Mars?
“More importantly, how many do you think will die to go on Mars?”
It has to be less than number of people who died climbing Mt Everest- if you are talking about NASA’s crew exploration program.
But if NASA takes too long [Because NASA has taken too long explore the lunar polar region and exploring Mars is hard to do] then anyone might explore Mars. And it’s one of the reason, I think NASA should explore Mars as fast as it can. So have less than dozen crew missions
to the Moon, then NASA should quickly shift to Exploring Mars. Or NASA is saying Mars exploration is a +2040 type thing, and it should be a +2030 type thing. NASA’s slogan is go to the Moon and stay, and it should be, go to the Moon and then go to Mars.
Or non-NASA might willing to take much higher risk, than NASA is allowed to take.
> It has to be less than number of people who died climbing Mt Everest
About 300 people died on the Everest.
We’re already nearing 20 deaths for space-flights.
Perhaps you should compare with mining colonies, e.g.:
https://blooddiamonds411.weebly.com/statistics.html
“As of May 2022, people from 44 countries have traveled in space. 622 people have reached Earth orbit.”
In term Mars exploration program it’s unlikely 600 people are going to land on Mars surface.
In terms Mars settlements, you could be talking about millions of people going to Mars.
And it’s possible millions of people could visit the Moon over a time frame that millions could go to Mars.
But I think a few dozen people should involved with NASA Lunar exploration program, who land on the Moon, and about 100 people should NASA’s crew which land on Mars surface.
But NASA could land 200 people on the Moon and not explore Mars.
NASA might have 100 people land on the Moon and also have 300 people land on Mars.
Of course China could sent crew to the Moon and Mars.
Japan seems at moment to mostly interested in the Moon, same goes
for India and Europe. And Brazil, middle east countries, Europe, Russia, Africa countries, and etc, etc, could governmental type programs was are independent of NASA lunar and Mars exploration programs. And if include all that, there could governmental crew going to Venus orbit and unlikely places such as Ceres or Mercury or even moons of Jupiter. If limit it to within the next 60 years.
[And we have been going to space for last 60 years.]
But I just wanted to focus NASA type Lunar and Mars explorative
efforts- and if talking next 60 years involving all humans, it seems
within 60 years we have millions people flying suborbital travel, per year, and with so many people involved they could be hundreds or thousands of accidental deaths.
Let’s look at my numbers, regarding just Mars and just NASA crew.
100 NASA crew total landing on Mars as part of the Mars crewed Mars program.
First, without using Venus, you can only go to Mars every 2.1 years.
And we will assume NASA just too stupid to use Venus, which allow
on average every year.
So, 100 / 2.1 years is 47.619 trips in a 100 years.
No, with allow NASA to continue 100 years not finish it’s foolness
effort of failing to explore within century of time.
The upper most patience could be at most, 50 years of doing the Mars
crew exploration of sending crew to Mars.
50 / 2.1 year is about 24 times of sending crew and NASA might crazy
enough to send on average 8 crew = 192 crew landing in Mars surface.
And one might assume that within 10 years of landing on Mars- some
non NASA entity also lands crew on Mars.
But what I do? I would use Venus.
I would send 3 crew per year to Mars, and on average send 2 or less crew back to Earth every year.
So in 30 years sent, 90 and brought back to Earth 60 or less. And
I would have about 6 or more bases on Mars with average of 5 per base.
Some bases might zero NASA people, a base could have as many 20 NASA people. Base with zero NASA people could have Non NASA people or
no people spending more than couple weeks of a year at them or not used normally. It could first place they landed on Mars, and they have found better place to land on the Mars, which is used more.
And/or they simply doing some kind of project which requires a lot crew to do- say they have found a really big and interesting cave complex.
If you’re gonna play the Sci-Fi futurologist and forecast a Mars colony in the near future, gb, you might consider going all in and drop the “unlikely” qualifiers. You can’t support them anyway.
In any event:
That’s from an old report in the sixties.
Elon’s family past is always fun to contemplate.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Who appointed you as the arbiter of what is trolling and what is not?
Can you name anybody who values your opinion (your reflection in a mirror doesnt count, of course)?
Who would take notice of a delusional, Sky Dragon crank who cant disprove describe the greenhouse effect?
Not many, I assume. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Brayer.
— Willard says:
February 20, 2023 at 6:30 PM
If youre gonna play the Sci-Fi futurologist and forecast a Mars colony in the near future, gb, you might consider going all in and drop the unlikely qualifiers.–
As I said, I don’t know if the Moon and/or Mars has mineable water.
If Mars is pure gold, one can not mine it, if Mars doesn’t have mineable water. What is worth billions of dollars on Mars is Mars water- if it’s mineable.
Other than mineable water, there other things needed to have Mars settlements.
Or only reason we are exploring Mars, is it is thought it could be a habitable planet and other than water, there other aspects which are required to be considered habitable.
Another question is does Mars have enough gravity to live on Mars.
And related to this, is does artificial gravity work in terms of
natural gravity of Earth.
Similar to the assumption that Mars has enough water {so that it might be mineable] is the assumption that artificial gravity would work [that allows humans live healthy more 1 year, not on the Earth surface].
Now, if Mars gravity is not enough, but artificial gravity can work as good as Earth gravity, then Mars lack of enough gravity could be
less of problem in regards to whether Mars is habitable or not.
There also could be unknown reasons why Mars is not habitable.
Or Mars has to explored first.
If don’t explore first, and people just went to Mars, everyone going could die, in a short period of time.
There some people who are willing to do this, but it’s not reasonable to assume that many people are willing to just go to Mars and “find out” whether it kills them or not.
In my opinion, NASA should tested artificial gravity, decades ago.
One could wonder why, they failed to do this?
But rather than blame an incompetent govt, you blame Elon Musk, for
not testing it.
I blame him.
Not sure why you would blame the gubmint for a project that only Elon wet dreams about, gb.
All I know is that mining colonies tend to kill people.
–Willard says:
February 21, 2023 at 7:37 AM
Not sure why you would blame the gubmint for a project that only Elon wet dreams about, gb.
All I know is that mining colonies tend to kill people.–
If that is all you know, it obviously indicates a shortage of knowledge.
What kills people is shortage of knowledge.
To have settlements on Mars, requires the mining of Mars water.
On Earth the mining of water, tends to involve making a water well.
But a very successful way of getting water, is making dams.
One can also draw water from sources of water, such a lakes and rivers. A dam is slowing down river and/or making a lake.
If you use pipes and a lake or river is at higher elevation, the water in the pipes have have enough pressure, to flow to areas in which people need the water.
Using water pumps, you need to pump water to the same elevation or higher elevation than the water is at.
Now, explained this before, and explain it again, in order to have human settlement on Mars, what has to be done, is to make lakes on Mars.
And this doesn’t need to be done, if NASA is exploring Mars.
NASA crew obviously needs water, but there are number of ways of doing this, and one obvious way is to bring water from Earth.
And what NASA is doing is exploring Mars to determine if Mars is
actually a habitable planet, as NASA claims it is.
So, it this point, “in theory” Mars could be a habitable planet.
Likewise, the Moon, “in theory” could be the gateway for Earth to become a spacefaring civilization.
For decades NASA didn’t know that lunar water was mineable, a result of Apollo Program was that the Moon was “very, very dry” and that was
probably correct, in places Apollo program went. But it should be noted, that for a very long time, we known/suspected that Mercury could have had some kind of ice caps it’s polar region.
But for whatever dumb reason, the PR message was the Moon was very dry. PR people are dumb as general rule, NASA’s PR has proven to beyond merely dumb.
At this point, it possible that the Moon has more mineable water than Mars has, but one could say, Mars likely has a lot more mineable water. In terms of numbers, the lunar polar region could have more than a trillion tons of mineable water, but more likely it’s billions
or million tons of lunar water.
With Mars, it’s commonly said there is trillions tons of water, but having trillion tons of water is possible AND having not having any mineable water.
Mineable water can be simplied, by indicating how money the water is sold at.
So, I would say Lunar water is possibly mineable if you sell it at
$500 per kg. Or if have any sense, you know lunar water is worth about $500 per kg, if talking about tens of tons of it, or if more than 1000 tons lunar water was for sale, it “might” not worth this much in terms market value, for some entities [such as NASA] they might very wise to buy it. Or any country or some individuals who want to do anything on the Moon. Or if there was million tons available within 10 year time frame, it might only be worth about $100 per kg,
Mars water could worth a much more than lunar water, but in terms
human settlements, I would say it has to be about $1 per kg or less.
Or $1000 per ton. And +1 million tons is a lake of water.
Logorrheas seldom kills anyone, gb.
Do continue.
The price of water on Earth is a life or death issue for the +7 billion people on Earth, but where it’s more expensive is more
of a life or death issue- in sense where is the most expensive it is
killing millions of people per year.
The United States uses about 600 billion tons of freshwater per year.
At it’s source you say it’s “free”- and you say this globally.
One could say, it’s a human right to have “free” water, and all African have this natural right- they are getting it, for free- but they paid very price for this water.
If one have fill container and walk a mile, carrying the water on top of your head, it’s work. And imagining a person’s time is free, is quite evil.
So, if you indoor plumbing, one could say water is close enough to
being “free” and if don’t water is very costly.
Of course, there issue having water which safe to drink, which costs
more if have to drink bottled water. Having indoor plumbing which delivers “good” water, is something most of people on Earth don’t have available to them. But roughly billions have roughly cheap water
they can use, but billion don’t. But Mars water costing $1000 per
ton is very expensive water, compared to people living Earth.
And I would say it’s only sustainable, because such high price can be expected to lower in decades/years of time.
Or the first million tons of water, is about about $1000 per ton, but
first billion, will not cost 1 trillion dollar, and second billion tons will costs a lot less- could be about as much as Earthling pay for water. And it’s even possible that water is cheaper than billions of humans are paying for water, right now. And eventually, less than anyone on Earth pays for water.
And this also is possible for people on the Moon [or for anyone living in Venus orbit]. Our solar system has Jupiter moons with far more water than Earth. Dwarf, Ceres is said to have more water than freshwater on Earth. And Humans presently using tiny fraction of freshwater water on Earth.
Countries like India and China with larger population are each using
about 1 trillion tons per year, as is Europe.
And if Sahara desert region was using 1 trillion tons of water per year, it wouldn’t be a desert.
“Elons family past is always fun to contemplate.”
My family [father’s side] were loggers:
“He standardized 10 job types (farm hands, plumbers, police officers, mixed crop and livestock farmers, sportspersons, coaches, and related, farmers and farm managers, truck drivers, miscellaneous laborers, air transport professionals, and forestry and logging workers) and estimated that forestry and logging workers had an incidence rate of 104.9 per 100 000, which was the highest of the job types estimated.”
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/4/239
I went out into woods when I was about 12. There was a lot talk about
logging, I believe it was mention that someone fell a tree, wrong, and died.
“The cause of death (treefall, limbfall, fall from a tree, struck by log, struck by object other than log, run over by logging vehicle, skidder or tractor rollover, chainsaw, lightning strike, other and unknown) and the activity at the time of death (cutting trees, limbing or bucking, skidding, setting chokers, loading logs, other and unknown) were combined into 14 cause-activity variables (table 1).”
Injuries, Fatalities, and Loggings Status as the Most Dangerous Job in America
https://forisk.com/blog/2020/08/26/logging-injuries-and-fatalities/
“Since the start of the 2000s, nearly 1,700 logging employees lost their lives on the job. Over 60% have been timber fallers, an increasingly rare occupation as mechanized felling machines supplant men with chainsaws, yet still the highest risk role on a logging operation. ”
My grandfather ran fairly large operations [hundreds, had remote camps, have cooks and workers stay in the location for weeks.
I remember my leaving for weeks, and remember one time, going to place where float plane was bringing him back- but various location and various ways of getting there- mostly I guess boat or driving in roads {there was a lot logging roads- all roads where made by logging
making roads was part of logging, back when my grandfather was logging.
Anyhow my father didn’t think logging should be big company operation- I actually reading college paper he wrote on topic. Anyhow he couple people that cut trees. They went in a cut down a lot trees, and wouldn’t take very long doing. And they won’t cut down trees where others were working, though I think recall one time, where the faller was maybe 1/2 or 1/4 mile away from us, but never been a close as say 100 yards of it. Though I used chainsaw and cut down trees- but not as pro. I have scar on left leg cause cutting brush type stuff and I was being lazy and stupid. My father often mention when he was kid, falling off a tree spar “having near death thing”, but somehow grabbed a line and didn’t get seriously injured.
Anyhow, falling trees was specialized job, and could they put trees exactly where they wanted them to go and they tended to have long life. They work quickly, in hours do more, what do get the wood out of there in days of time. But if don’t know what doing and certain trees are more dangerous- you could easily kill yourself [or kill others if anywhere around them]. Anyhow, I didn’t do much logging, my older brother did some, but ended up mostly being a fireman. One sees a lot dead in that business, and fireman have to followed safety rules. I guess cutting thru roof, is something you have careful with. They mainly worried about getting people [or pets] out of a burning building.
Well at least the Irish Examiner has the sense to put that in the OPINION section of the paper. LMAO!
Gill, Gill,
That 2022 being recorded as the warmest Irish year on record since 1900 with an average temperature of 10.8C isn’t OPINION.
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/19/1/2023/cp-19-1-2023.pdf
“Reassessing long-standing meteorological records: an example
using the national hottest day in Ireland”
“day”
So peaks are not important anymore.
Highest daily maximum temperature records indeed matter, Richard.
Just not in response to my comment.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Who appointed you as the arbiter of what is relevant and what is not?
Can you name anybody who values your opinion (your reflection in a mirror doesn’t count, of course)?
Who would take notice of a delusional,SkyDragon who can’t even describe the GHE?
Not many, I assume. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Nitwit.
Mike Flynn,
What are you doing here?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Highest daily maximum temperature records indeed matter”
Which is what I was pointing out.
Just not in response to my comment, Richard.
The year includes daily peak records (which are not that accurate the further back in time you go).
That’s not how it works, Richard.
The year includes daily records, including any peaks.
Actually, the yearly time series don’t include days.
Months which makeup yearly data do not include days (which makeup the months)?
Indeed they do not, Richard.
You did not know that?
Weary Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Gill, Gill,
That 2022 being recorded as the warmest Irish year on record since 1900 with an average temperature of 10.8C isn’t OPINION.”
That would mean that 1900 was warmer than 2021, at least.
In other words, it has been hotter in the recent past, and cooler in 2021 at least.
You are definitely not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?
Are you suggesting that CO2 in the atmosphere affects air temperatures? Really? Can you describe the physics that predicts that removing CO2 from a sample of air causes a drop in temperature?
Of course you can’t, which makes you an idiotic and ignorant SkyDragon cultist.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Of course I can, and of course I do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpKLHWg2Ffg&t=17s
Keep being the silly Sky Dragon crank we all love and admire.
Weary Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Gill, Gill,
That 2022 being recorded as the warmest Irish year on record since 1900 with an average temperature of 10.8C isnt OPINION.”
That would mean that 1900 was warmer than 2021, at least.
In other words, it has been hotter in the recent past, and cooler in 2021 at least.
You are definitely not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?
Are you suggesting that CO2 in the atmosphere affects air temperatures? Really? Can you describe the physics that predicts that removing CO2 from a sample of air causes a drop in temperature?
Of course you cant, which makes you an idiotic and ignorant SkyDragon cultist.
Relying on an anonymous link to support your assertion is just stupid. I suppose you don’t know any better.
Mike Flynn,
TL;DR –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpKLHWg2Ffg&t=17s
Keep braying.
Weary Wee Willy,
You wrote
Gill, Gill,
That 2022 being recorded as the warmest Irish year on record since 1900 with an average temperature of 10.8C isnt OPINION.
That would mean that 1900 was warmer than 2021, at least.
In other words, it has been hotter in the recent past, and cooler in 2021 at least.
You are definitely not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?
Are you suggesting that CO2 in the atmosphere affects air temperatures? Really? Can you describe the physics that predicts that removing CO2 from a sample of air causes a drop in temperature?
Of course you cant, which makes you an idiotic and ignorant SkyDragon cultist.
Relying on an anonymous link to support your assertion is just stupid. I suppose you dont know any better.
Mike Flynn,
Who appointed you as the arbiter of what is meaning and what is not?
Can you name anybody who values your opinion (your reflection in a mirror doesnt count, of course)?
Who would take notice of a delusional, Sky Dragon crank who cant disprove describe the greenhouse effect?
Not many, I assume. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Brayer.
Woeful Wee Willy,
When you write nonsense like “Who would take notice of a delusional, Sky Dragon crank who cant disprove describe the greenhouse effect?” Can’t disprove describe? Well, who would imagine that they could disprove describe?
You really are an idiotic troll, aren’t you?
If the best you can do is parrot my comments back to your imaginary Mike Flynn, replete with garbled nonsense, then you definitely need to upgrade your skills.
Dimwit.
[laughing at deranged SkyDragon]
Mike Flynn,
TL;DR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpKLHWg2Ffg&t=17s
Keep copy pasting your braying.
Woeful Wee Willy,
When you write nonsense like Who would take notice of a delusional, Sky Dragon crank who cant disprove describe the greenhouse effect? Cant disprove describe? Well, who would imagine that they could disprove describe?
You really are an idiotic troll, arent you?
If the best you can do is parrot my comments back to your imaginary Mike Flynn, replete with garbled nonsense, then you definitely need to upgrade your skills.
Dimwit.
[laughing at deranged SkyDragon]
Mike,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpKLHWg2Ffg&t=17s
Bray more.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Binny wrote –
“Javier is an experienced person who unlike some pretentious ignoramuses posting here very well knows that when you want to achieve valuable predictions, you cant solely rely on the present: you first have to ‘dissect the past'”
Nobody can reliably foresee the future. If Javier believes he can predict the future by dissecting the past, he is either a fraud or a fool.
Guesses about the future are not “valuable predictions”. They are guesses.
Carry on being a gullible SkyDragon cultist. Based on your dissection of the past, when do you believe the seas will start boiling due to the GHE?
[laughs at SkyDragon wishful thinking]
Blather blather blather blather…
I’m seriously Amazed, Flynnson!
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
On this President’s Day in America:
https://www.historicalsocietyottawa.ca/speakers-presentations/jimmy-carter-chalk-river-and-beyond?highlight=WyJjaGFsayIsInJpdmVyIiwicml2ZXInIiwicml2ZXIncyIsImNoYWxrIHJpdmVyIl0=
Also: Ask President Carter – SNL https://youtu.be/-68iTvhWNB0
In two days, another wave of Arctic air will reach the west coast of North America.
https://i.ibb.co/R9VpH4w/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f060.png
Hopefully it will only last 2 days. The Polar Vortex should be breaking up by now and weakening, I hope.
Therefore, the Arctic air is free to flow.
And if it does, ren, what does happen to the Arctic?
Ooooooh! A gotcha!
Willard the fool demonstrates his intellectual paucity.
Why are you still braying, Mike =
Is it because you do not know the answer?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Ooooooh! A gotcha!
Willard the fool demonstrates his intellectual paucity.
Does your “Oh! Oh! Oh!” Indicate another satisfactory masturbatory experience, or are you just demonstrating your mighty intellect?
Mike Flynn,
In many sub threads you ask the same gotcha over and over again.
In the other you lulz about gotchas.
These are not very consistent stances.
Keep braying!
Ooooooh! A gotcha!
Willard the fool demonstrates his intellectual paucity.
Does your Oh! Oh! Oh! Indicate another satisfactory masturbatory experience, or are you just demonstrating your mighty intellect?
What are you braying about, Mike?
The answer is simple.
You do not know it?
Too bad.
Ooooooh! A gotcha!
Willard the fool demonstrates his intellectual paucity.
Does your Oh! Oh! Oh! Indicate another satisfactory masturbatory experience, or are you just demonstrating your mighty intellect?
Copy-paste your comment again, Mike.
Ooooooh! A gotcha!
Willard the fool demonstrates his intellectual paucity.
Does your Oh! Oh! Oh! Indicate another satisfactory masturbatory experience, or are you just demonstrating your mighty intellect?
That’s my boy.
Again!
A nice visualization of what means ‘to be one-sided’:
https://tinyurl.com/58s3cme2
If Bill Hunters conclusion is that Russia has through a targeted disinformation tactic caused the CO2 crisis and the political will to exit the use of fossil fuels they have an amazing strategy that strengthens their market for fossil fuels and at the same time causes major economic hardship for the democratic world. It seems to me a stretch for Russia and perhaps China to have accomplished such a feat but what a strategy!
dennis…”at the same time causes major economic hardship for the democratic world”.
***
That’s why we need to put pressure on the Ukrainians to settle the current insanity. The situation in the Ukraine is being sold as an unwarranted Russian invasion and the West has painted itself into a corner by continuing to spread that propaganda. The situation in the Ukraine began as a civil war in 2014 that was started by armed Ukrainian nationalists running off a democratically-elected Ukrainian president.
You simply cannot allow such a coup in a country claiming to be a democracy. Our support of the Ukraine to do such a thing is deplorable and the fact that we participated in the overthrow of a democratically-elected president is even more deplorable.
The world is going to hell in a hand-basket as we find ways to further alienate dangerous foes, then justify it through outright lies.
bill h…”NASA, NOAA, any credible scientist knows thats not the case. Yet they allow the charade to continue because their intent isnt to inform their intent is to achieve political aims”.
***
Of interest re NOAA, is their hiring of David Legates, a skeptic, as ‘NOAA’s deputy assistant secretary of commerce for observation and prediction’.
Could change be afoot? That was in 2020.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/12/912301325/longtime-climate-science-denier-hired-at-noaa
I recall the Trump admin ordering NOAA to turn over certain documents and they refused. Could it be that the government took action and replaced some boffins? Or, maybe Lagtesis no longer there.
gordon it wouldn’t the first time that undue influence hung a politician out to dry. after all its party first, not special interests. special interests merely help mightily in building a party. politicians have no remorse in hanging special interests out to dry if they are costing them votes.
it has been costing votes they need to find a way out to declare victory by claiming their programs worked. commuters are not happy campers and any accountant will tell in such a situation you don’t keep digging the hole deeper.
I recall the Peterson-Happer interview you posted, in which Happer confided that he had advised Trump to do such and such and it had been rejected by the backroom boys for political reasons. People who blame Trump for everything don’t get it that he is often just the front man, he doesn’t create policy.
It wasn’t Trump’s policies that attracted me, it was his irreverence. I loved the way he stuck it to the politically-correct. For example, telling the freeloaders who hid behind the NATO umbrella to pay their fair share. We know NATO is hopeless without the US.
maguff…”Gordon Robertsons cavalier suggestion that the principle of conservation of energy can just be set aside was wrong”.
***
I recall leaving you can extensive explanation of my position. I made no such claim, that conservation of energy theory can be set aside, I addressed only the 1st law, claiming it applied only to heat and work, and as such is not a law of conservation for all energy.
In fact, the 1st law is not a law of anything since heat and work have entirely different measures. As Clausius, who contributed the U to the 1st law claimed, heat and work cannot be equated directly because they have different units of measure.
Heat and work have an equivalence, not an equality. The only way the 1st law can work is if either heat is converted to equivalent work units or work converted to equivalent heat units.
Traditionally, heat is measured in calories, which are a measure of the amount of heat required to raise a cc of water by 1C at an ambient temperature of 15C. Work is traditionally measured in the European equivalent of HP, the watt. A watt is a measure of how much weight can be moved in a specific time, The watt is actually a measure of mechanical energy.
However, circa 1840, the scientist Joule, found an equivalence between heat and work. He ran a small paddle mechanically in water and measured the rise in temperature of the water. His conclusion was that so many joules of mechanical work could produce so many calories of heat. The actual value worked out today is …
1 calorie = 4.184 joules.
The calorie and joule have entirely different units with different definitions. All they have in common is an equivalence.
Think about it. You take an electric drill with a paddle attached that can churn water. You stick a thermometer in the water and measures how much the temperature rises. So, what is going on?
The paddle disturbs water molecules that are bonded by weak hydrogen bonds and the bonds break apart generating heat. Is the paddle causing the heat…no. The heat is a byproduct of water molecules breaking up, therefore the heat comes from the molecules.
There is no direct relationship between heat and work therefore the 1st law is a statement of equivalence, not equality. It is by no means a general law of energy conservation.
SSW operates in the north-central part of the US.
Temperature in C.
https://i.ibb.co/hRLSkLy/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-21-081903.png
Some delusional SkyDragon cultist wrote –
“Given that Energy in Energy out = Accumulation, there are three possible outcomes: . . . ”
Given? Another example of SkyDragon self serving unsupported irrelevant misdirection.
Here’s a dingbat who can’t even describe the GHE, trying to sound authoritative as a diversion.
A better question, perhaps – “Given that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, what role did the GHE play in the cooling?”
[derisive laughter at delusional SkyDragon]
Mike Flynn,
Here:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
Most obliged.
Willard, please stop trolling.
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A man in Arizona sees a glimpse of a potentially frightening future. A future where the planet is hotter, the soil is drier, and our most precious resource is evaporating.
His job is delivering water. And his job is getting harder.
John Hornewer is now having to drive hours farther each day to fill his truck, which, in turn, fills the subterranean tanks at homes in an area outside Phoenix.
His normal supplier cut him off; more precisely, on Jan. 1, the city of Scottsdale, Ariz., cut off transfers to the exurban community he serves in a desire to conserve water for its own residents.
He found new suppliers, farther away. Then another supplier cut him off.
And now he’s had to go farther, spending more time in his truck, making fewer deliveries, and having to double the price he charges hundreds of his customers in Rio Verde Foothills, an unincorporated community that has lost its water supplier.
“It’s brutal,” Hornewer said in an interview. “The water haulers simply cannot keep up.”
Hornewer refers to Rio Verde Foothills as a warning sign, as the Colorado River shrinks and climate change is forecast to make things worse: “We’re the first domino to fall.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/rio-verde-water-access-1.6749754
This is how many ancient civilizations fell.
Poland must still hold the record.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Not with a bang, but with a whimper.”
Somehow, I have little sympathy for people who sell water.
Re Poland…the country has suffered enough over the years without climate alarmists taking shots at it. Especially an Irish climate alarmist.
Come on, Bordon.
We all know know that empathy is not your strongest suit.
Keep telling war stories with your skinny jeans and rock on.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Go on, wee willy, I have a lot of empathy for you, I would not want to be in your shoes, making a fool of yourself as you do.
Swenson and I have tried to straighten you out with our worldly wisdom but you are incorrigible.
C’mon, Bordon.
Mike Flynn wouldn’t succeed to straighten the tie he matches to his sheepish clothes.
Willard, please stop trolling.
maguff…”E = mc^2 does not mean that mass and energy are the same thing. Mass and energy are equivalent in the sense that they can be converted into each other, but they are not identical. Mass is a property of matter that determines its resistance to acceleration, while energy is a property of a system that enables it to do work or produce heat.
You have to learn to walk before you can run. Learn the basics first before moving to the more advanced topics”.
***
Still awaiting Maguff’s response to my recent treatise on the 1st law. He is likely furiously combing the Net for authority figures.
So, Maguff thinks mass and energy can be converted into each other? Can he supply an example where mass disappears and becomes energy, or energy suddenly appears as mass? The latter would be a neat trick considering no one knows what energy is. So what kind of energy does mass convert to, or vice-versa.
For example, how could you confirm that a quantum of EM suddenly converted to a mass, or that a quantity of heat became a mass? If that was possible, solar energy striking the Earth should have doubled the mass of the Earth by now.
The Einsteinians would likely argue that the mass gets radiated away. Nice hypothesis, proving it might be another matter. No pun intended.
Defining mass as a property of matter that offers resistance to acceleration is not quite correct. If I push on a block of concrete and it goes nowhere, Maguff is suggesting the mass has a high resistance to acceleration. What he means is the block has a high resistance to a force. Until that block moves, there can be no acceleration, and if it does not change its velocity once moved, there is still no acceleration.
At which point do we separate velocity from acceleration? The Moon is so far away wrt a gravitational force that the acceleration at Earth’s surface, about 9.8 m/s^2 is reduced to about 0.003 m/s^2. It amazes me that is enough to even move a mass like the Moon but I guess when you distribute the gravitational field over a large area it has an effect.
The effect is enough to move the Moon the required 5 metres over a distance of 8000 metres to fit the curvature of the Earth. Therefore the Moon continues to follow the curvature in an orbit. Is that 5 metres over 8000 metres enough to qualify it as an acceleration?
I am guessing that is not an acceleration but a simple linear deviation. Perhaps at the distance of the Moon, combined with its mass, Newton’s f = ma no longer applies.
Gordon,
You wrote –
“So, Maguff thinks mass and energy can be converted into each other? Can he supply an example where mass disappears and becomes energy . . . ”
I can supply an example, I hope, but I cannot confirm the measurement.
The Hiroshima atomic bomb converted about 0.7 g of matter to energy. You might like to check, in case one of my calculation assumptions was wrong.
As far as I know, radiation absorbed by a body increases its mass – not by much, and it usually radiates excess energy away rather rapidly. How do photons appear at the speed of light instantaneously? I don’t know. How does a photon know the temperature of the body which emitted it? That’s the wrong question, but I don’t even know the answer to the right one! How do photons know to behave as particles, or as waves, depending on whether you count them or not? Beats me. As Feynman said, Nature is absurd.
For me, it’s even worse (or funnier, depending on your mood), Nature seems to be chaotic.
Whatever we believe makes no difference to Nature, although people are prepared to die for their beliefs (or kill others, I suppose). Weather, and hence climate, is unpredictable in the sense that no one cabin “predict” the weather better than I can, using a naive forecast based on the past continuing – plus looking out the window!
IMHO, of course.
swenson…”The Hiroshima atomic bomb converted about 0.7 g of matter to energy. You might like to check, in case one of my calculation assumptions was wrong”.
***
Not pretending to be an expert on this.
Just read an article explaining this. Einstein had a penchant for arbitrarily re-defining phenomena without any scientific proof. He ***re-defined mass*** as energy, hence E = mc^2.
This re-definition came in 1905 some 8 years before Bohr discovered the relationship between EM and the atom (electron). In essence, Bohr’s find dismissed Einstein’s theory by proving EM is absorbed by an electron in an atom. We know now what happens when the EM is absorbed by the electron, the electron transitions to a higher energy level.
Ergo, EM is not converted to mass, it is converted to kinetic energy in the electron’s higher orbital. So, why has Einstein’s theory hung around? I guess for the same reason his dumb theory about time dilation hung around. The fact that he actually wrote in one of his early papers on relativity, that time is the hands on a clock, suggests to me he was highly over-rated.
Newton was the true genius, he not only formulated the theories he did the experiments. Einstein was a purely theoretical physicist and I doubt he ever did an experiment in his life. I have always wondered why Einstein seemed to dislike Bohr, and now I know. Bohr applied the boots to his E = mc^2 theory.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/05/einstein-equation-emc2-special-relativity-alok-jha
Einstein re-defined time based on the speed of light, hence time dilation.
In an atomic explosion of the nuclear kind, energy is released as heat, light, mechanical, and nuclear energy. The initial light is so strong it can blind a person. The heat can incinerate a person. The worst part, however, is the mechanical blast that is a shock wave. That’s what levels cities.
I read about the blast in Nagasaki reported by POW’s. Some of them were standing in the open and were killed. Those behind any kind of wall were spared. Mind you their location in Nagasaki was far enough away that the blast did not affect them.
This is a perfectly good reason why we should stop feeding the Ukrainians weapons and start talking peace. Modern A-bombs would take out a city up to 80 km around it.
Gordon Robertson
Experiments have been done long ago confirming mass/energy equivalence.
Here is one where energy (gamma ray) becomes mass. Positron/Electron pair production. Observed often enough that it is not doubted.
https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/interaction-radiation-matter/interaction-gamma-radiation-matter/pair-production/
The conversion of mass to energy is usually in the form of high energy EMR in the gamma range. It also be other particles and the mass is converted to kinetic energy of those different particles. Many experiments with good data have been done in many large atom smashing instruments. It is well established science, observed, measured etc.
Positrons annihilate with electrons (mass is converted to energy directly usually gamma rays of equal energy to the mass and kinetic energy of each). Mass is gone only EMR remains and rapidly moves away.
norman…you are trying to tell me the only energy to which E = mc^2 applies is electromagnetic energy. Now explain to me how EM produces mass. EM is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field.
If you look closely at your article, they are claiming a mass-enery equivalence, which is nonsense, except to an egghead in theoretical physics. They will tell you with a straight face that the entire mass of the universe occurred during a big bang out of absolutely nothing.
If you want to believe that I have a suspension bridge in good shape I can sell you here in Vancouver dirt cheap.
I challenge these eggheads to make me a pound of gold out of EM.
Gordon Robertson
I can’t explain how EM turns into mass. I go by the experimental evidence. Maybe some high brains have your answer. The evidence is clear that energy turns into mass. An energetic gamma ray will become a positron and an electron. This is factual and real not a hypothesis. It is observed to take place with visible evidence.
The eggheads may not be able to produce a pound of gold from EM as gold is composed of multiple electrons, neutrons and protons. However it is a fact that EM will convert to positrons and electrons. I think at higher energy levels they have produced anti-proton/ proton pairs but will have to research to verify.
Maybe research high energy physics a bit before making blanket statements about what is and is not possible. You will have to update your understanding of physics. Your current understanding is based only upon your opinion of how you think the Universe works. It has no experimental or observational basis. You would be on the opinioned side of those who opposed Galileo when he dropped his weights from the Tower of Pisa. Their science was based upon their own ideas of how the Universe works. They were certain heavy objects fell faster than lighter ones. Galileo with experiment proved their opinions wrong. High energy physics experiments conducted many many times in various particle accelerators proves your ideas are invalid and need to be corrected.
Gordon Robertson
Here is one visual image of pair production. There are many many others that show the same thing.
https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/1385/view/electron-positron-pairs
Calculate the total energy of all the mass, photons, dark matter and dark energy in the universe.
Calculate the total gravitational potential.
They are equal and of opposite sign.
Total mass energy-total gravitational energy = 0.
Since it requires no energy to create a big-bang universe it is quite possible that our universe began as a quantum fluctuation in nothing.
Light sails?
Why will there be a long winter in the northern hemisphere? Because the air from over the Arctic will flow freely southward ( the polar vortex is completely broken up). The temperature in the Arctic in February is very low, as shown by the temperature of the ice.
https://i.ibb.co/t2Wr66f/icetemp-arc-d-00.png
Current temperatures (in C) in the north-central US.
https://i.ibb.co/3rkRsdR/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-22-091337.png
Current temperatures (in C) in Canada.
https://i.ibb.co/C1hpN8s/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-22-092238.png
When comparing the various different planets’ and moons’ (without-atmosphere, or with a very thin atmosphere, Earth included), when comparing the planetary surface temperatures, a very persistent question needs to be answered:
How can the planet average surface temperature (Tmean) increase without the radiation increasing?
–
And here it is when a major basic physics concept BREAKS THRU!
The importance of the proper use, and the importance of the proper understanding of the STEFAN-BOLTZMANN BLACKBODY EMISSION LAW!
Jemit = σT⁴ W/m
The Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission law actually is THE RADIATIVE ENERGY EMISSION LAW!
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is NOT the RADIATIVE ENERGY absorp,tion law!
Thus, the Planet Effective Temperature Equation:
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]∕ ⁴ (K) Hansen et. al., (1981) https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
i>”Greenhouse Effect
The effective radiating temperature of
the earth, Te, is determined by the need
for infrared emission from the planet to
balance absorbed solar radiation:
πR(1 – A)So = 4πRσTe⁴, (1)
or
Te = [So(1 -A)/4σ]∕ ⁴ (2)
where R is the radius of the earth, A the
albedo of the earth, So the flux of solar
radiation, and σ the Stefan-Boltzmann
constant. For A ~ 0.3 and So = 1367
watts per square meter, this yields
Te ~255 K.
The mean surface temperature is
Ts ~288 K. The excess, Ts – Te, is the
greenhouse effect of gases and clouds,”
which is based on the mistaken assumption, that the Stefan-Boltzmann Blackbody Radiative Energy Emission Law FORMULA
Jemit = σT⁴ W/m
could also be applied to the real planet Infrared Emission BEHAVIOR.
The Planet Effective Temperature is only a MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTION, and, therefore, it is an IMPERFECT, and it is an INCOMPLETE equation for the Planet the Mean Surface Temperature THE PRECISE ESTIMATION!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
cristos…”The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is NOT the RADIATIVE ENERGY absorp,tion law!”
***
That’s right, the S-B equation is valid only between about 500C and 1500C in an emitting body. For temperatures outside that range, another value of sigma is required. There is no way it applies at terrestrial temperatures. Doing so gives ice an emission intensity that is far too high.
Gordon Robertson
You are such a science denier! You are a crackpot like Claes Johnson and Gary Novak. I do understand now what it is. All of you suffer from what is known as the “god complex”. You all think more highly of yourselves than you ought. You think you are more brilliant than countless scientists who have spent years in fields of study or you invoke the unfounded “Conspiracy View” that the scientists are brilliant but working for some alleged “New World Order” and are evil and dishonest.
You think making a declaration makes it true. This is “god complex”
YOU: “Thats right, the S-B equation is valid only between about 500C and 1500C in an emitting body. For temperatures outside that range, another value of sigma is required. There is no way it applies at terrestrial temperatures. Doing so gives ice an emission intensity that is far too high.”
This is false, misleading and currently proving you are a liar as Bindidon has demonstrated with you. I have given you links proving this is false and by you intentionally ignoring them and spreading false informtion (with intent) makes you a liar and most dishonest. It is part of the “god complex” your lies don’t matter but you see everyone else as dishonest and liars like the entire world of virology. You accept the words of the liar Lanka without question but thousands of others are all dishonest liars.
You can verify the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is valid for all temperatures by monitoring the cooling rate of room temperature objects. It is done in labs around the world I have given you examples of low temperature testing of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and it is valid over the range of temperatures.
You ignore the true information with intent. Your “god complex” personality allows you to continue to lie, ignore all evidence proving you wrong and continue to peddle false misleading information. The only change in you is if you start to see you suffer from “god complex”.
norman…”You can verify the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is valid for all temperatures by monitoring the cooling rate of room temperature objects”.
***
Do it, and report back. I’d like to see the evidence that ice gives off radiation at 325 W/m^2.
You might have a few problems though. How are you going to measure the radiation from a room temperature object? Stefan had the advantage of Tyndall’s experiment where he heated a platinum filament till it glowed different colours as the current through it was increased.
Someone else correlated the colours to a colour temperature and Stefan took it from their since he had already worked out something close to a T^4 relationship. However, the constant of proportionality, sigma, applies only in that temperature range.
It’s not easy to derive such a relationship at room temperature. A FLIR will only give you a temperature derived in a lab and I am sure it won’t be derived from S-B directly but from a manipulation of it. FLIR manufacturers won’t divulge those secrets.
Another problem you’ll likely encounter is the radiation given off at room temperatures is relatively insignificant. The text books you rely on will tell you radiation is not significant till high temperatures are reached. That’s why, until recently, radiation was not considered a significant cause of heat dissipation in a home. It still isn’t.
The human body does not cool significantly via radiation. It is direct exposure to air molecules by the skin that cools the body by conduction and convection. Radiation will pass right through the heaviest of clothing unless it is made of metal.
I have revealed before that I wear a heart rate monitor with the transmitter on a strap around my chest. It radiates to a watch on my wrist. The radiating frequency is very high and it passes straight through any amount of clothing. In winter, I often use multiple layers of clothing with a heavy jacket. No problem, the EM goes straight through it.
I am flattered that you compare me to Claes Johnson, one of the foremost authorities on black body radiation and the nonsense behind anthropogenic warming.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “I am flattered that you compare me to Claes Johnson, one of the foremost authorities on black body radiation and the nonsense behind anthropogenic warming.”
It is not a compliment. He is really quite ignorant of the real science. He has a “god complex” like you and just makes up stupid ideas that are way easy to prove wrong. He is not a brilliant man mostly a crackpot.
IR does not pass at all through thick clothing.
Your heart monitor uses microwave energy which passes though a lot of materials. It works in the 2.4 GHtz range of EMR.
Look at this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
The low end for IR is 300 GHtz and the Earth IR would be in the trillion htz frequency range.
Here is a video showing that a heavy coat is very effective in stopping IR.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nugSDOahitM
No textbook on radiant physics makes your claim ” will tell you radiation is not significant till high temperatures are reached.”
You can determine that Ice does radiate around 315 W/m^2 at its melting point (not 325). You need a vacuum condition and cold surroundings. Dry Ice would do if you surrounded your vacuum container in liquid nitrogen (this would only emit around 2 W/m^2 back to the ice so it would not change the experiment).
If you take a sphere of ice at 0 C (273 K) that has a surface area of 1 square meter you can get a really good estimate of the energy loss by radiation. The specific heat capacity of ice is 2.108 kJ/kgK. You need to get a really good weight of the ice. Once you have that you will be able to calculate how much energy the ice is losing based upon its temperature change and you will find, in order to change by what you have set up, it will be radiating a 315 Watts.
Not sure why you persist in your distorted and false understanding of radiant energy. I know the goofy crackpot Gary Novak made these claims. I am sure this is your source for this horribly bad physics. It is bad, wrong. The values you have in a CRC come from vast amounts of experimentation to derive all the values contained in these volumes.
It would not matter if you were shown real physics. You still would not accept it. You can only accept crackpot ideas that go against the established science (yes based upon lots of experiments over many years by many people).
Norman,
You wrote –
“You can determine that Ice does radiate around 315 W/m^2 at its melting point (not 325). You need a vacuum condition and cold surroundings.”
You are an idiot. Ice radiates IR proportional to its temperature. It doesn’t matter whether it is in a vacuum or not, nor what its environment consists of.
It doesn’t matter what you think – the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and continues to do so, regardless of a “greenhouse effect” which (surprise! surprise!) you can’t even describe!
Carry on being a gullible SkyDragon cultist – it suits you.
Swenson
I think you might want to reevaluate your jump to attack my post.
ME: You can determine that Ice does radiate around 315 W/m^2 at its melting point (not 325).”
It is not me being an idiot, it is that you lack reading skills but are able to repeat your stupid idea a million times by now.
Read what I stated again, maybe as many times as you say the same things in your posts. Did I say any temperature?? NO I did not. Your limited ability to process words created this false content. I clearly wrote at “its (ice) melting point”…0 C, 273 K, 32 F.
Do you need a paper towel to wipe the egg off your face?
The Earth’s Surface HAS NOT cooled for 4.5 billion years. It is mostly in a steady state with solar input moving up and down a few degrees C over long periods of time. There is zero credible evidence anywhere that the Earth’s Surface has continued to cool for 4.5 billion years. Your endless repetition of a false statement will not make it become true.
Swenson
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/GlobalWarming/images/epica_temperature.png
Some estimates of past Earth surface temperatures. This covers 800,000 years. The temperature has gone up and down (current theory for the changes is Earth’s precession) a few C. It shows no clear cooling or warming during those years. Some cyclic pattern but no sigh of continuous cooling is evident.
Norman, you ignorant fool,
You wrote ” I clearly wrote at its (ice) melting point0 C, 273 K, 32 F.”. Good for you – show me where I said you didnt – you can’t. Quote me where I said something you believe to be incorrect, and provide your reasons. Handwaving unsupported assertions are not reasons.
You also wrote “The Earths Surface HAS NOT cooled for 4.5 billion years.” Well, yes, it has. Ask any geophysicist, or any physicist, whether a body with a glowing interior, placed in sunlight at a distance of 150,000,000 km, will magically heat up and cool down!
You wouldn’t even make such a stupid statement yourself, would you?
If you don’t believe the Earth has cooled since its molten state, good for you! I guess delusional SkyDragon cultists are forced to deny reality to justify the existence of a GHE (which they can’t even describe).
Keep denying reality. No indescribable GHE. No unicorns. No Nobel Prize for the deranged SkyDragon, Michael Mann.
Swenson
YOU: “You also wrote The Earths Surface HAS NOT cooled for 4.5 billion years. Well, yes, it has. Ask any geophysicist, or any physicist, whether a body with a glowing interior, placed in sunlight at a distance of 150,000,000 km, will magically heat up and cool down!”
I think it would be really hard to find any geophysicist or physicist who would claim a magic up and down temperature cycle. They would accept that some factors have influence on the surface temperature causing swings in global surface temperature.
Since you keep making the claim that the Earth Surface has cooled for 4.5 billion years show your evidence.
It was Molten for a few hundred million years of the that 4.5 billion year time span then if solidified and liquid water became part of it.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2005/05_35AR.html#:~:text=Research%20funded%20partly%20by%20NASA,as%204.35%20billion%20years%20ago.
Here is a long term surface temperature discussion.
https://muchadoaboutclimate.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/4-5-billion-years-of-the-earths-temperature/
Swenson
YOU: “You also wrote The Earths Surface HAS NOT cooled for 4.5 billion years. Well, yes, it has. Ask any geophysicist, or any physicist, whether a body with a glowing interior, placed in sunlight at a distance of 150,000,000 km, will magically heat up and cool down!”
I think it would be really hard to find any geophysicist or physicist who would claim a magic up and down temperature cycle. They would accept that some factors have influence on the surface temperature causing swings in global surface temperature.
Since you keep making the claim that the Earth Surface has cooled for 4.5 billion years show your evidence.
It was Molten for a few hundred million years of the that 4.5 billion year time span then if solidified and liquid water became part of it.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2005/05_35AR.html#:~:text=Research%20funded%20partly%20by%20NASA,as%204.35%20billion%20years%20ago.
Here is a long term surface temperature discussion.
https://muchadoaboutclimate.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/4-5-billion-years-of-the-earths-temperature/
Thank you, Gordon.
–
Also a planet surface emission behavior should not be confused with the blackbody emission behavior.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…that applies to the atmosphere as well. There’s no way CO2 in air can be called a blackbody absorber/emitter.
Gordon:
“Theres no way CO2 in air can be called a blackbody absorber/emitter.”
–
Of course not!
Good news everyone:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/extreme-drought-weather-beef-cattle-farmers-herds-1.6754806
Oh no! Drought in the USA! Drought in Canada!
Unprecedented! Shock! Horror!
Must be due to water in the air (H2O being the most important “greenhouse gas”)!
Join the SkyDragon cult – they claim that it is actually CO2 that causes droughts – and floods, and cold snaps, and heat waves, and . . .
Mind you, the average SkyDragon doesn’t seem to keen on blaming droughts on too much water in the air.
What a pack of delusional fools. They might just as well waste their time running around waving placards that say “Stop Climate Change!”
What are you braying about, Mike?
Oh no! Drought in the USA! Drought in Canada!
Unprecedented! Shock! Horror!
Must be due to water in the air (H2O being the most important greenhouse gas)!
Join the SkyDragon cult they claim that it is actually CO2 that causes droughts and floods, and cold snaps, and heat waves, and . . .
Mind you, the average SkyDragon doesnt seem to keen on blaming droughts on too much water in the air.
What a pack of delusional fools. They might just as well waste their time running around waving placards that say Stop Climate Change!
Re WV…we have far more than our share in the air around Vancouver, Canada yet it gets colder and colder. It currently -2C and snowing.
C’mon, Bordon.
It’s MINUS TWO and it is SNOWING?
RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!1!
hey, ww, I live in the banana belt of Canada, if it drops below 5C we get nosebleeds. If it drops below 10C we whine.
I am preparing a letter to Environment Canada complaining about the warming they promised us. Where is it?
C’mon, Bordon.
Everywhere you live it’s bananaland.
Wiltard,
What’s your point? That some places have droughts?
Second word, Troglodyte.
“Uptick.”
If you could be less thick, that’d be great.
[Gordon Robertson February 14] Try to set aside this notion that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It’s a smug statement that is far too general in nature.
[Gordon Robertson February 20] …I made no such claim, that conservation of energy theory can be set aside, I addressed only the 1st law, claiming it applied only to heat and work, and as such is not a law of conservation for all energy.
maguff…you need to get better at cherry picking. Those two statements attributed to me have nothing in common.
Fun with thermo…
Demonstration of The first law of thermodynamics, a.k.a. the law of conservation of energy.
I made this sequence of drawings so that even a small child can understand it: https://ibb.co/VCqQ70K
Materials:
1 empty plastic bottle (uncapped), 1 small rubber balloon, a container.
Procedure:
Attach the (deflated) balloon to the plastic bottle.
Place the plastic bottle in the container.
Add hot water to the container and watch the balloon inflate.
Discussion:
ΔU = U2 U1 = dQ dW
The plastic bottle, the attached balloon, and trapped air form a closed thermodynamic system because energy, but not mass, can cross its boundary.
Heat energy from the hot water is converted to work exerting pressure on the walls and inflating the balloon.
TM,
Playing with semantics like a devout SkyDragon won’t help. Matter and energy are equivalent, unless you want to stay in the 19th century, and ignore Einstein. However, definitions are just definitions.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, regardless of how you define it.
Stupid SkyDragon handwaving about “conservation of energy” does nothing to change the fact that the Earth has cooled – despite having an atmosphere containing both CO2 and H2O for most of this time.
Your “demonstration” does not have anything to do with the “conservation of energy”, nor the non-existent GHE. A pointless diversion, presumably aimed at demonstrating your vast knowledge of thermodynamics. It succeeded.
Next, you could demonstrate that placing a thermometer in sunlight makes it hotter! Conservation of energy? You are one delusional SkyDragon – you can’t even describe the role of the GHE in planetary cooling!
Try harder to be relevant, fool.
Your minus signs are missing. Also, keeping in the format of calculus dQ and dW should be dq and dw. Q and W are usually integral results.
If you heat the bottle then stick it over a boil, it will suck out the puss due to the vacuum created. What does either have to do with an explanation of the 1st law?
Well, I certainly didn’t need to learn about your (lack of maybe) personal hygiene habits.
Today’s US temperatures (in F).
https://i.ibb.co/WVPvK6r/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-22-194449.png
This could be the biggest snowstorm this winter in the US.
https://i.ibb.co/37jWJVB/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-22-203424.png
–Logorrheas seldom kills anyone, gb.
Do continue.–
I do it down here- and test your theory.
A problem with Earth and Mars, is free “land” -or Ocean in Earth’s
case {I think one should have the right to buy “cheap ocean area- so we can have low income housing on the ocean- everyone can live on
the beach {and can surf].
Mining Mars water is mostly about selling Mars real estate.
People will want to own land near a lake and/or in a lake.
Mining Mars water is also about making electrical power and making
hot water.
Most of water use on Earth is used for farming, but water is more
use for power use, than “residential” use.
The significant of Mars, in terms humans being spacefaring civilization, is farming on Mars. Farmland on Mars can be cheap.
We are call cheap farmland being around $500 per acre. India doesn’t have such cheap farm land, but despite this they are exporting farm goods. But it would better to have cheap farm land.
Ocean area without having waves, could be $500 per acre, but market price would probably be higher. But one could have ocean area on Earth which is used for farming purpose at say $1000 per acre which you can’t get in India. And in Venus orbit or Earth Orbit, it’s imposible within say 50 years, you have area for growing stuff, less than $100,000 per acre. Though this could related to how much air pressure growing things [plants] need. Making a space with say 5 psi
of pressure is expensive in space.
One thing water does on Mars, is it makes pressure.
On Earth, Earth gravity make 1 atm of pressure 10 meters below waterline, Mars gravity ratio is .379.
So 10 meter under water has .379 atm of pressure.
1 atm = 14.7 psig times .379 = 5.5713 psig
Within a spacesuit, astronauts have about 4.5 psi and
2.5 psi is lower limit for humans, plants might able to live ok, below 4 psi. {Mars is .095 psi}.
So humans [and fish] can live on Mars under a lake without containment vessel. One include containment vessel which has entrance at lower depth [without door/airlock- or have a Moon pool, “also known as a wet porch.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_pool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzVtFCUaf5c
SpaceX’s INSANE New Starship LEAKED by Elon Musk!
Don’t panic.
Nothing really new, but a good review.
Good, because I have been a fan of Sea dragon for many
decades, and it mentions it {as only other plan of having
very, very large chemical]. But there has been less well
thought out plans regarding the Nuclear Orion {truly terrifying
rocket- which is not chemical rocket- which dwarfs the Sea Dragon-
btw, the Chinese reportedly considered making such a rocket {and I guess, gave up on it].
It very unlikely Musk will make rocket twice as big as the Starship any time soon.
But whenever we get to the point of Mars settlements,
such a large rocket could be part of doing that.
And Mars settlement even if very optimistic, isn’t going to happen
in less than 10 years. And they will launched from the Ocean.
And might borrow from plans of Sea dragon rocket- launch from the ocean without a launch pad/tower.
Or something like my idea of a pipelauncher- which also could said to very similar to Sea Dragon.
This might interest you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
We will make Orions, but not leave Earth or used in low Earth orbit.
They could make getting to Venus and leaving sky, cheaper.
But they would tend to used by governments rather private use.
And if don’t need to have a natural Earth gravity environment- other mining or tourism, or using Venus as military fortress against alien invasion- there would not much reason to use Venus sky.
But if want to get into skies of gas giants, a Nuclear Orion could be quite useful.
I thought a fair amount about them for star travel- and didn’t seem like good idea, and tended to favor the crazy idea of Zubrin – a salt water rocket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket
I accept the general idea, that being a spacefaring civilization is a higher level of a civilization.
And I would say the difference is greater than than the stone age vs to farming civilization [or some call farming civilization as beginning of civilization- it allowed “cities”].
Though one draw a line between, the industrial revolution and before it. Which one could call the end of human slavery or a significant break from these past social practices. In western world, another line was the fall of roman empire. It might better compare Industrial
Revolution to the Space Age- at least in terms of a fast transformation.
But anyhow, what seems to me, as key aspect of having spacefaring civilization is living in Space. We don’t live in space- living in LEO destroys or transforms Earth living creatures.
One might say living in space is unknown, but after spending 6 months
microgravity, it causes problems returning to Earth’s gravity.
Or human body adapts to microgravity, this adaptation causes problems
when you return to Earth. We can visit space, and during a short visit, it causes lots of physical problems upon returning to Earth’s gravity. Or sending children to orbit, could cause unforeseen problems or worse, having baby in microgravity.
And we don’t know if Artificial Gravity will change this, or how much
it changes this. Or if you adapt to Artificial 1 gee Earth gravity is
the same as Earth gravity.
What seems like insanity, is NASA’s lack of any significant tests of artificial gravity as it relates to humans.
Coupled NASA PR of wanting to send human crew to Mars which has drum beat {obsessive] for decades.
In terms of anything amounting to consistency, would be NASA lame excuse it doesn’t have the funding to do it.
Artificial gravity seems to mean only, having some huge wheel like thing in orbit. Having some huge wheel like thing in LEO- would be very dumb. And you should test artificial gravity before making such a dumb huge wheel like thing in LEO. But just because 2001 space odyssey, had a wheel, doesn’t mean we need a wheel.
“So on Mars and Venus the window for life to become complex was too short. Only Earth had the just right conditions that gave life the time it needed. Lucky us, right? Very lucky, in my opinion, since so many things could (and nearly did) have closed our window too soon too.
I love nature documentaries. Im amazed at the incredible beauty of life on Earth and I believe in preserving it, in making sure it goes on. The thing is, theres only one way that can happen. Humanity *must* survive.
Remember what I said about our Sun getting hotter over time? Thats still happening and in about a billion more years it will do to Earth what it did to Venus. All life on Earth will die. The End.”
https://medium.com/@kelly.parks/life-on-earth-is-doomed-without-us-8f3447eb7d2d
Linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/2023/02/22/life-on-earth/#comments
How much time have we got? Certainly not billion years. Or even 100 million years.
A few things about 100 million years, we likely to be hit by large space rock by that time, though also likely to our nearby stars change by that time also. Also less mentioned is our solar system could change, in such seemingly short periods of time as tens of thousands of years. Or we don’t know enough to rule this out. Though things like nearby supernovas are considered possible, so without our solar system changing because we clueless about it, a Supernova in past or future could have changed our solar system already, or will in future.
Let’s look again our changing nearby stars. Where that link??
Go here, first:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf
Nope,see List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs
Sub section: Distant future and past encounters
Gliese 710 gets nearest: 0.167 +/- 0.012 lightyear distance in
1296 thousand years or about 1.296 million years and presently it’s
62.248 lightyears from us:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_710
And Scholz’s star already go near us, about 78,000 years ago and
closest it got was 0.82 lightyear [so, it was pretty away as compared
how close Gliese 710 will get to us:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholz%27s_Star
–Solar System flyby
“Estimates indicate that the WISE 0720−0846 system passed about 52,000 astronomical units (0.25 parsecs; 0.82 light-years) from the Sun about 70,000 years ago. Ninety-eight percent of mathematical simulations of the star system’s trajectory indicated that it passed through the Solar System’s Oort cloud, or within 120,000 AU (0.58 pc; 1.9 ly) of the Sun.Comets perturbed from the Oort cloud would require roughly two million years to get to the inner Solar System.–
So got 2 million years before perhaps many huge comets could impact Earth- of course if we are spacefaring civilization well before than, rather possibly harm, these are giant business opportunities.
Or right now if was going happen in 10,000 years, our only option is to become a spacefaring civilization, then we might not be too late to do much about. But at moment, can’t do much about these types of things- unless you want to mass produce, Nuclear Orions on Earth which politically speaking, would be hard to do.
When we become spacefaring, we will have many kinds of “spacesuit”.
I was thinking about how one would have “Get Smart” entrances on Mars. Or you have sideway/hallway and walk thru doors.
You can go thru doors which have pressure difference, and probably
all people have done it {on Earth}. Or need door which at least partially sealed and/or a “normal door” and there significant pressure differnce- 1/2 psi difference is a lot pressure difference.
So you have “Get Smart” doors with less than 1/2 psi difference and walk thru them from say the outside Mars atmosphere “vacuum” and then reach a door which is something you call airlock- a door with more 1/2 psi difference.
Anyhow, then listen to Scott Adam asks can you engineer a mask which works- and of course you could make a kind of spacesuit- or flight suit which works in an emergency situation as spacesuit.
Or spacesuits are generally things work for hours of time, and if plug them in, days of time. But you make a spacesuit for say 10 to 20 mins of time. Or couple mins of time. Or your typical spacesuit takes
an hour of time to prep to use. So something take very short period
of prep. Or you could have a “spacesuit” which leaks- you loses say 1 kg of air every minute. Or rather hold 4.5 psi, it hold 1 psi difference- which because going 3.5 psi environment is same as 4.5 psi. And of course you could going environment which 14 psi and it adds 1/2 psi.
But if engineering mask- you making something you use for a long time
and is cheap because making a lot of them. And cheap could be $200 per unit- assuming they comfortable and fashionable, and easy to use.
And it could many uses other than just a mask- driving a motorcycle, for instance.
Anyhow I was thinking of outside entrance to a Mars lake- go from Spacesuit to a scuba suit, and having “Get Smart” doors- I mean the old comedy TV show starring, Don Adams who goes bunch doors in the beginning of every show.
Willard finally admits (earlier) “All I know is that mining colonies tend to kill people.”
That doesnt seem to stop him acting as though he knows other things.
What a delusional, lying, peanut! Unless he really doesn’t know anything except that “mining colonies tend to kill people” – which is nonsensical anyway. About as silly as saying “science says . . . “.
Not terribly bright is Willard.
Mike Flynn,
I know that you are Mike Flynn.
I know that you are braying.
I know that *all I know* is an expression.
So what are you braying about?
Willard finally admits (earlier) All I know is that mining colonies tend to kill people.
That doesnt seem to stop him acting as though he knows other things.
What a delusional, lying, peanut! Unless he really doesnt know anything except that mining colonies tend to kill people which is nonsensical anyway. About as silly as saying science says . . . .
Not terribly bright is Willard.
Mike Flynn,
I bruise you, you bruise me
We both bruise too easily
Too easily to let it show
I love you, and that’s all I know
Willard finally admits (earlier) “All I know is that mining colonies tend to kill people.”
That doesn’t seem to stop him acting as though he knows other things.
What a delusional, lying, peanut! Unless he really doesn’t know anything except that mining colonies tend to kill people which is nonsensical anyway. About as silly as saying “science says . . . .”
Not terribly bright is Willard.
Mike Flynn,
All my plans
Have fallen through
All my plans depend on you
Depend on you to help them grow
I love you and that’s all I know
Willard finally admits (earlier) All I know is that mining colonies tend to kill people.
That doesnt seem to stop him acting as though he knows other things.
What a delusional, lying, peanut! Unless he really doesnt know anything except that mining colonies tend to kill people which is nonsensical anyway. About as silly as saying science says . . . .
Not terribly bright is Willard – reduced to plagiarizing irrelevant nonsense.
What a dimwitted donkey he is.
Mike Flynn,
When the singer’s gone
Let the song go on
Weepy Wee Willy,
Thats not a greenhouse effect! Thats a link to something which is obviously irrelevant, because you refuse to describe it, and which you have posted more than 25 times for some obscure reason.
You are a delusional SkyDragon cultist, trying to convince yourself that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will miraculously transform itself into truth!
About as stupid as denying that the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years mythical greenhouse effect notwithstanding!
Carry on posting nonsensical links. Ill keep on not bothering to waste my time following them. You really are an idiot, arent you? Both impotent and incompetent.
Mike Flynn,
But the ending always comes at last
Endings always come too fast
They come too fast
But they pass too slow
I love you and that’s all I know
Willard finally admits (earlier) – “All I know is that mining colonies tend to kill people.”
That doesn’t seem to stop him acting as though he knows other things.
What a delusional, lying, peanut! Unless he really doesnt know anything except that mining colonies tend to kill people which is nonsensical anyway. About as silly as saying “science says” . . . .
Not terribly bright is Willard reduced to plagiarizing irrelevant nonsense.
What a dimwitted donkey he is.
Mike Flynn,
When the singer’s gone
Let the song go on
It’s a fine line between the darkness and the dawn
They say in the darkest night, there’s a light beyond
Willard, please stop trolls l
A major snowstorm is moving into eastern Canada.
https://i.ibb.co/4SB3Ljt/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-23-075237.png
An influx of Arctic air into the US.
https://i.ibb.co/pbBj5y1/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-23-080501.png
Swenson says:
February 22, 2023 at 10:25 PM
“Oh no! Drought in the USA! Drought in Canada!
Unprecedented! Shock! Horror!
Must be due to water in the air (H2O being the most important greenhouse gas)!”
So, despite all your bluster, you do believe in the greenhouse effect.
EM,
Maybe if you could describe the “greenhouse effect” (which you can’t), I could let you know whether I “agree” with it!
You must be singularly dimwitted if you believe that an excessively moist atmosphere is associated with drought. I was being sarcastic, you ninny, but it is a characteristic of deranged SkyDragon cultists that they think the use of sarcasm is their exclusive province.
You wrote “So, despite all your bluster, you do believe in the greenhouse effect.”. As usual, when a delusional SkyDragon cultist starts a sentence with “So, . . . “, he is attempting to pervert reality, and put words in someone’s mouth.
Of course, you insinuate that you have mind reading powers, hoping that others will believe you. Bad luck – who would believe a dimwitted SkyDragon like you? Not me, that’s for sure!
What an incompetent fool you are.
[not quite ROFLMAO, but close]
Mike Flynn,
The greenhouse effect –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
What are you braying about?
Weepy Wee Willy,
That’s not a “greenhouse effect”! That’s a link to something which is obviously irrelevant, because you refuse to describe it, and which you have posted more than 25 times for some obscure reason.
You are a delusional SkyDragon cultist, trying to convince yourself that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will miraculously transform itself into truth!
About as stupid as denying that the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years – mythical “greenhouse effect” notwithstanding!
Carry on posting nonsensical links. I’ll keep on not bothering to waste my time following them. You really are an idiot, aren’t you? Both impotent and incompetent.
Mike Flynn,
I said –
The greenhouse effect:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Keep braying.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Thats not a greenhouse effect! Thats a link to something which is obviously irrelevant, because you refuse to describe it, and which you have posted more than 25 times for some obscure reason.
You are a delusional SkyDragon cultist, trying to convince yourself that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will miraculously transform itself into truth!
About as stupid as denying that the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years mythical greenhouse effect notwithstanding!
Carry on posting nonsensical links. Ill keep on not bothering to waste my time following them. You really are an idiot, arent you? Both impotent and incompetent.
Mike Flynn,
How do you know this is not the greenhouse effect?
Copy-paste your comment again,
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote – “How do you know this is not the greenhouse effect?”
Because it’s a link to a YouTube video, by the look of it, not a “greenhouse effect” at all!
You really are an idiotic SkyDragon cultist. Why do you ask such stupid questions?
In regard to your “request”
Weepy Wee Willy,
Thats not a greenhouse effect! Thats a link to something which is obviously irrelevant, because you refuse to describe it, and which you have posted more than 25 times for some obscure reason.
You are a delusional SkyDragon cultist, trying to convince yourself that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will miraculously transform itself into truth!
About as stupid as denying that the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years mythical greenhouse effect notwithstanding!
Carry on posting nonsensical links. Ill keep on not bothering to waste my time following them. You really are an idiot, arent you? Both impotent and incompetent.
Good boy.
Again?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Webb telescope discovery was so shocking astronomers thought it was a mistake
The discovery “calls the whole picture of early galaxy formation into question.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/nation-world/webb-space-telescope-massive-galaxies-discovery/507-9a71db8b-28bb-49c9-b781-379baa925e46
linked from https://instapundit.com/
–THE SCIENCE WAS SETTLED, UNTIL IT WASNT: Webb telescope discovery was so shocking astronomers thought it was a mistake.
The Pennsylvania State Universitys Joel Leja, who took part in the study, calls them universe breakers.
The revelation that massive galaxy formation began extremely early in the history of the universe upends what many of us had thought was settled science, Leja said in a statement. It turns out we found something so unexpected it actually creates problems for science. It calls the whole picture of early galaxy formation into question.
Science advances by observation, not by proclamation.
Posted at 8:01 am by Glenn Reynolds
Hmm, you look and find stuff- who would have thought??
Hmm, you look and find trash – who would have thought??
“Astronomers have used the James Webb Space Telescope to peer back in time to the early days of the universe and they spotted something unexpected. The space observatory revealed six massive galaxies that existed between 500 million and 700 million years after the big bang that created the universe.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/world/webb-telescope-massive-early-galaxies-scn/index.html
Massive Webb Space Telescope Discovery Defies Prior Understanding of the Universe
https://scitechdaily.com/massive-webb-space-telescope-discovery-defies-prior-understanding-of-the-universe/
James Webb Telescope spots galaxies from the dawn of time that are so massive they ‘shouldn’t exist’
By Ben Turner
published 2 days ago
https://www.livescience.com/james-webb-telescope-spots-galaxies-from-the-dawn-of-time-that-are-so-massive-they-shouldnt-exist
That’s better indeed.
We have had a bit over a year since James Webb Telescope launch, and in terms operation just over 1/2 year of it, it’s just in it’s
beginning of finding out, many of things.
The Webb telescope certainly produced nice pictures but they are so lacking in fine detail as to be nothing more than pretty pictures.
Here we go again about looking back in time. The light collected by the Webb telescope is collected in the same here and now as we live in. The light energy is not from the past, it exists right now.
Of course, the reference to time is related to the fact it took a very long time for the light energy to get here. Having said that, what is the use of information representing a past that no longer exists? What information can we possibly glean from the light?
Of course, we are stuck with the theory that light moves at a certain velocity and nothing else is involved. We know very little about light and its velocity only inane theories that nothing is faster.
Polaris, the star we use as the target of our N-S pole is 320 light years from Earth. It takes 320 years for light to get here from Polaris. For all we know, Polaris is no longer there and we won’t find that out for another 320 years. Furthermore, we don’t know if Earth is still pointed at it, or ever was.
We are deluding ourselves into thinking this information is of any value to use here on Earth right now. It certainly has no bearing on the nonsense that were are looking back at energy from the sci-fi Big Bang.
— Gordon Robertson says:
February 24, 2023 at 5:41 PM
Here we go again about looking back in time. The light collected by the Webb telescope is collected in the same here and now as we live in. The light energy is not from the past, it exists right now.–
There is about 1 second delay between Earth and Moon and there is minutes of delay Earth and Mars [making robotic operations with Mars
difficult particularly when Mars is at longer distance from Earth.
from link to telescope image defying what scientists “thought” they knew…
These objects are way more massive than anyone expected, said Joel Leja, assistant professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State, who modeled light from these galaxies. We expected only to find tiny, young, baby galaxies..
***
The ‘assistant’ prof ***MODELED*** what he thought comprised the galaxies. Science is riddled with this idiocy about unvalidated models. All it took was a stronger telescope to tell them they were totally wrong.
Here we are with climate science relying on the same kind of stupid unvalidated models and we know they are wrong well before being proved wrong. Yet governments the world over are putting citizens through the hoops by imposing fraudulent theories on them, based on unvalidated models.
Gordon Robertson
From the tone of your post it sounds like you are Anti-Science. You think science is about coming up with an idea and that is that. Not so fast. Science comes up with models (mathematical) of how they think the Universe works but it is based upon the best available evidence at the time. It is not a flaw of science to change or update a model when new information comes in. Science is a fluid dynamic. Even with Climate Change it is fluid and changing as more research on the subject takes place. Youi have such invalid and crackpot physics creating your reality that you have not ability to appreciate real science or how it works. Bindidon has pointed out your anti-science setiment mainly propped up by Crackpots like Claes Johnson, Lanka, Gary Novak and various other cult minded crackpots.
How Livestock Farming Benefits The Planet
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/23/how-livestock-farming-benefits-the-planet/
Says governmental guy who killed 40,000 elephants
Cold fronts from the north bring snowfall to southern California and Arizona.
Heavy snowfall in the mountains of northern California.
https://i.ibb.co/Bfwz35g/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-24-083009.png
https://i.ibb.co/4PqXr0R/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-24-083610.png
For a better perspective, take a look at this map, the US is a BIG country:
https://ibb.co/s6cJ4PW
They are talking about weather. Since climate is a 30 year average of weather, what is the point in reporting localized weather over 1 week? And what does it have to do with a trace gas in the atmosphere?
Ren only posts on weather, Bordon.
Yet you seem to get his point.
Come on.
The Arctic air will take hold in the US for an extended period.
https://i.ibb.co/hDky6rh/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-24-084219.png
Arctic air will now flow into Europe for an extended period of time. It will bring snowstorms and freezing temperatures.
https://i.ibb.co/71frhv7/hgt300-1.webp
Aaaah!
Palmowski’s newest fossile fuel and nuke propaganda about harsh global cooling all over Europe.
Europe forecast for the coldest night in Berlin / Warsawa (27.02.23)
https://i.postimg.cc/mghCVznD/Wetteronline-forecast-EU-2023-02-27.png
and for the coldest night in Lulea, North Sweden (09.03.23)
https://i.postimg.cc/3wmBC0yG/Wetteronline-forecast-EU-2023-03-09.png
*
Last time I posted a forecast showing what indeed happened, Palmowski discredited it as ‘mere propaganda’, ha ha haaa.
This is simply ridiculous.
What is far less ridiculous however is the real cooling in North America!
Binny,
How is the GHE responsible for the “real cooling in North America”?
Or does the GHE only have an effect when the weather is hot?
There is no GHE, Binny! It’s a mythical concept that neither you nor anybody else can even describe.
Aaaah!
Finally, the ‘No GHE’ blathering stalker came along again.
But… where is his permanent ‘4.5 billion years of cooling’?
*
And a propos, Flynnson?
Why should I care about your endless ‘No GHE’ blathering?
Whether you like it or not, it has been proved, I posted a link about that, but you are simply too dumb to grasp such things, aren’t you?
Poor Flynnson… moving from ‘Mike Flynn’ via ‘Amazed’ down to ‘Swenson’ didn’t make you even a tiny bit more clever.
Au contraire!
binny…”Why should I care about your endless No GHE blathering?”
***
You obviously do care, you take enough time to comment on it.
Too bad you write nonsense like a common troll. Soon you will miss the real spring.
binny…”Palmowskis newest fossile fuel and nuke propaganda about harsh global cooling all over Europe”.
***
Ah! Yet another Binny whine about Ren reporting the truth.
I find Ren’s weather reports useful for alerting me to potentially dangerous conditions in my area.
Forewarned is forearmed.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Winter is warming everywhere: Winters have warmed in 97% of 238 U.S. locations since 1970.
Winter is warming fast: Winter was the fastest warming season for 75% of these locations.
About 80% of locations now have at least seven more winter days above normal than in 1970.
In our warming world the coldest days arent as cold, and cold snaps are shrinking.
Warming winters affect public health, water supplies, agriculture, and recreation.
https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/2022-winter-package
With all this “global warming” we were able to avoid a 4-year La Niña.
Last night’s temperatures in the upper US midwest were only 3-4 degrees F below record lows. It could have been worse.
Last night I ate frijoles.
Thanks, La Nia!
We know you are full of beans, wee willy.
C’mon, Bordon.
Blame La Nia!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Even here in the banana belt of Vancouver, Canada, we are well below average and have been much of the winter. The question around here is how long winter will push into Spring, or if we’ll have a Spring at all.
Is it just me, of is Spring a weird name for a season?
Of course it’s just you, Bordon.
C’mon.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thanks for that ww. Since I gained enlightenment I have trouble identifying a self-centre. Sometimes it gets a bit chilly living in a cave in the Himalaya but, heck, it’s all in my mind.
Tummo, Bordon.
Tummo:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2002/04/meditation-changes-temperatures/
Willard, please stop trolling.
ww…”Winter is warming everywhere: Winters have warmed in 97% of 238 U.S. locations since 1970″.
***
Where did you get this propaganda, at skepticalscience? They seem to have a thing for 97% over there.
C’mon, Bordon.
97% is for another square:
https://climateball.net/but-consensus#97
Willard, please stop trolling.
Reed Timmer Extreme Meteorologist
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BLIZZARD coverage continues from Mountain High California above Wrightwood. Targeting Cajon Pass as a high impact zone along I15. Blizzard conditions confined to the exposed ridges.
Heavy precip moving in now!
The point made at chiefio site is that NOAA has only 3 ***reporting*** stations for the state of California and all are near the ocean where it is warm. NOAA ignores the fact the California has mountains and deserts where temperatures can get pretty cold.
Still, blizzards anywhere in California, nearly 40 years after Hansen declared an imminent climate catastrophe in 1988, is ridiculous. How long will climate alarmists keep deluding themselves while offering abject propaganda to scare everyone to comply with their idiocy?
Yeah.
Robertson the permanent, stupid and ignorant liar again at work.
It’s incredible.
How is it possible to lie all the time?
Answer:
– when you are a psychopath,
and
– when you gullibly follow absolutely incompetent people like EM Smith aka chiefio.
NOAA’s GHCN daily has in the total about 1250 CA stations.
Here are the CA stations per year when generating data out of them:
2010 683
2011 695
2012 681
2013 650
2014 651
2015 644
2016 630
2017 625
2018 620
2019 614
2020 603
2021 597
2022 591
*
Of course, I forgot: psychopath Robertson KNOWS from chiefio they don’t exist, the data is generated automatically!
But… when John Christy evaluates NOAA’s USHCN station data, the stations suddenly all exist, and even produce valuable data.
O miracle!
Regardless what Robertson writes about: it’s all trash.
*
Especially his cowardly, disgusting pro-Putin lies about the Russian aggression against Ukraine.
He should be sent to Bucha, and talk with the remaining inhabitants, they will explain to him what Russian soldiers did there last year…
Oh I understand: it’s mere anti-Russian propaganda, isn’t it?
Binny,
You wrote – “He should be sent to Bucha, and talk with the remaining inhabitants, they will explain to him what Russian soldiers did there last year”.
Is this after you have infected him with Covid, when your efforts to electrocute him failed?
You idiot, you are completely powerless to enforce any of your threats.
Maybe you could concentrate your mind on explaining the role of the mythical GHE in the Earth being cooler now than it was four and a half billion years ago? No?
Oh well, keep making meaningless threats.
Maybe you are annoyed that the German attempts to destroy Leningrad during WW 2 failed, due to the Russians not cooperating?
From Wikipedia – “The 872 days of the siege caused extreme famine in the Leningrad region through disruption of utilities, water, energy and food supplies. This resulted in the deaths of up to 1,500,000[75] soldiers and civilians and the evacuation of 1,400,000 more (mainly women and children), many of whom died during evacuation due to starvation and bombardment.”
How many people died in Bucha?
I dont support war, but I suppose it’s an innate human trait, with only losers on both sides. Both sides generally claim that God (or the Gods) is/are on their side, and that they are justified in killing those who disagree with them. You seem to be rather keen on inflicting pain and suffering on anyone who disagrees with you, but luckily you are both incompetent and impotent in that regard.
Carry on warmongering.
swenson…re Leningrad siwge…don’t know if the article reveals that their (German) siege tactics ended up with many of them freezing to death during the winter. They appealed to Hitler to allow them to withdraw but the Bohemian corporal/house painter refused the request.
Aaaah!
Flynnson the incompetent allround stalker naming me an idiot.
Magnifique!
Binny,
With more than eight billion people to choose from, why would I bother “stalking” you?
Do you think you are important enough to be “stalked”?
You dont disagree with me calling you an idiot, because you can’t find a single reason to base your disagreement upon, can you?
That makes you doubly the idiot, wouldn’t you agree?
[laughs at paranoid idiot convinced he is important enough to be stalked]
binny the galloot…” when you gullibly follow absolutely incompetent people like EM Smith aka chiefio”.
***
One thing E.M.Smith has done is actually check to see which stations are being used. In the link I keep posting to you, where NOAA admits to slashing the stations they use to less than 1500 globally, you must be claiming they too are incompetent.
E/ M. details his sources and all you do is look up junk tables and leap to conclusions.
Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS pointed out the problem. They don’t have the resources or the time to check out all the stations you list. It’s all they can do to correlate 1500 stations per month globally.
Robertson
You are and keep the most ridiculous mixture of incompetence and idiocy.
All the stations listed transmit their data automatically – in contrast to the 4500 which NOAA had to drop off around 2008 BECAUSE they reported data by fax or telex, what of course became inadmissible nowadays.
How is it possible to write such dumb, ignorant trash?
Answer: only those who are gullible followers of contrarian blogs do that.
I’ve repeatedly given you the statistical reasoning behind the choice of 1500 stations for measuring global averages.
You evidently feel that NOAA should use a larger number of stations. Please tell us how many stations they should use and the mathematical reasoning behind your choice.
And Spencer has demonstrated how their choice of stations isn’t working.
Stephen Anderson
I ask you the same question I asked Gordon. What is the correct number of stations and how do you calculate it?
EM,
Oooooh! Another stupid gotcha!
Do you really not know the answer, or are you just playing some obscure SkyDragon game?
I do know the answer.
The confidence limits of a mean improve in proportion to 1/√sample size until the confidence limits equal the internal variation of the data.
Once you reach that sample size, further increase gives no improvement in confidence. Adding extra stations gives no extra value and is just wasted resources.
For climate data such as global annual averages the crossover point is 1500 stations.
“The confidence limits of a mean improve in proportion to 1/√sample size until the confidence limits equal the internal variation of the data.”
Does that include purely random, chaotic, data?
“For climate data such as global annual averages the crossover point is 1500 stations.”
Assuming the stations reported are truly a representative sample and that the globe is 100% land.
RLH
“Does that include purely random, chaotic, data? ”
It’s chaotic, but it’s not random. Station data is strongly constrained by geography and seasonal cycles.
As you know, chaotic systems like the climate around a station vary around a strange attractor. When you plot a station’s data as a frequency distribution you get an approximate Gaussian distribution, a bell curve.
That’s the internal variation I mentioned. It limits the quality of your data, regardless of sample size.
And why do you assume that all stations are on land?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=42n9QXfi-CU
It was forecasted that I could get snow last nite, I didn’t see any snow falling, but nite before I saw it bit snow. None making snow on the ground, yet. The hills probably have a lot. And tonite it might get some snow here.
https://www.facebook.com/reedtimmer2.0
It’s 45 F, here. And 2000 feet higher, probably snowing.
And in few hours, it might be snowing here [maybe] but
better chance in about 6 hours.
Most of time in evening it’s cold enough, but luck hasn’t favored
snowing.
But getting rain, it seems we going to say the drought has ended,
soon.
–four characteristic of being great
Courage
Unyieldly commitment to truth.
Not striving to be loved by everyone.
Seek to do right [and will be an outlier]
The Dennis Prager Show, February 23, 2023–
I am not great.
I lack courage- I will try avoid things which could be regarded
as having courage.
I like trying to find truth, but I don’t have much commitment
to it.
I am not striving to loved by everyone- as that would require
a lot of work. And if successful, it would imagine it would be some kind of hell.
Doing what is right, feels nice. It seems one would have to mentally ill to feel otherwise
I find great people, to be very interesting, as are “ok people”.
It seems George Washington tried to be great, and though he might
have been unhappy, I think he successful at being great.
It seems politicians should be trying to be great {I can not see any reason to be politician, other that, and 99.9% or more are completely failing to do this- which make me, not like them.
So, Washington and Lincoln were great and were miserable, but there is little doubt, that they were great.
Dennis seems to trying to do what he thinks is great, and he is keeping himself fairly happy, which might be a new kind of way to be
great.
All happy people are great. And trying to happy as moral obligation, is great idea.
My daily whine.
Environment Canada, which now calls itself Environment and Climate Change Canada, predicted we’d have two days of sub-zero weather on Wednesday and Thursday, with it warming up over the next week. Now, the cold is projected into the middle of next week.
If they cannot predict the weather accurately, how the heck can they predict the climate? They have no idea how the Arctic Vortex will behave over a period of days yet they are presenting absolute bs. about how the climate will be 50 to 100 years from now.
Meantime, rents and housing are beyond ‘out of control’ and we cannot find doctors without waiting 6 months to hopefully find one. That’s because our federal government thinks its more important to make Canada a haven for all the world’s ills rather than looking after its own citizens.
The Canadian government thinks it is far more important to act based on a lie about catastrophic climate change, based on unvalidated models, than to ensure its citizens have places to live and doctors when needed.
That’s exactly what it is. The winter stratospheric polar vortex is unpredictable, and the winter season freeze can reach far south at any time.
If you do not like the Canadian government, why not elect one more to your liking?
There are too many idiots brainwashed into thinking they are doing an adequate job.
Also, the opposition parties have a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The up and coming right-wing candidate Pierre Poilievre, just shot himself in the foot by declaring the German politician Christine Anderson, another right-winger, as representing vile politics. Her politics are no different than most right-wing Conservatives.
Why? She is opposed to Islam. She thinks it is a Draconian form of mind control used by governments to impose authority on people. Ask anyone living under the Taliban if she is right. She is also opposed to the mindless, wholesale importation of refugees. In other words, Anderson is not one of the idiotic woke culture that is destroying our democracies.
Anderson is the woman who stood up in the European Parliament and denounced Canadian PM Trudeau for imposing a war measures act on Canadian truckers that went so far as to impose the freezing of bank accounts of anyone who had contributed to a fund to support them. Even Trudeau admitted recently that he went too far.
Anderson is being tarred and feathered for the views of some militants in her party in Germany. I have heard her speak and she talks calmly about human rights while explaining her POV. I see nothing radical about her, yet both Trudeau and Poilievre have declared her views as being ‘vile’.
It’s obvious that Poilievre is butt kissing for Muslim votes, which, to me, is really vile.
Heavy snow and rain in California.
https://i.ibb.co/61MPx9t/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-25-083049.png
Frost and snow in Portugal and Spain.
https://i.ibb.co/DGvnhF4/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-25-081936.png
Ireneusz Palmowski, you become really more and more brazen!
Why do you suggest such things?
Look at the coldest temperatures in SP/PT for Feb 23-25:
SP000008280 51-71 1944 2 25 -22.5 (°C)
SPE00156099 53-72 2013 2 23 -19.1
SPE00156018 52-72 2013 2 23 -19.0
SPE00156495 53-72 2013 2 23 -18.8
SP000008280 51-71 1944 2 24 -18.6
SPE00156198 53-72 2013 2 23 -18.5
SPE00156018 52-72 2013 2 24 -18.4
SPE00156099 53-72 2013 2 24 -17.8
SPE00156495 53-72 2013 2 24 -17.8
SPE00156027 53-72 2013 2 23 -17.7
Coldest temps in Portugal:
PO000008575 52-69 1944 2 24 -9.0
PO000008575 52-69 1993 2 25 -7.2
PO000008575 52-69 1944 2 23 -7.0
PO000008575 52-69 2018 2 24 -6.0
Does somebody pay you for posting such scary ‘It is cold everywhere’ all the time?
For a better perspective, take a look at this map, the US is a BIG country:
https://ibb.co/98zG45v
Arctic air will not let up in North America.
https://i.ibb.co/0Jq6GLx/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
Glad you finally understand that the US is the country and not America. America is a continent.
Winter low in California.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt0dqIaR-jk
Snowstorm over the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/Lv4s3Qz/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-25-135508.png
Strong jetstream from the north over Germany.
https://i.ibb.co/hV4X5Q2/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-25-140231.png
On March 7, there will be another hit of Arctic air from the north in Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/LtLXhmm/hgt300.webp
If La Nina survives until April, it could be reborn.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC006&year=2023&month=02
If… but:
https://i.postimg.cc/brbVjLVz/nino34250223.png
If Zharkova is right, the next 30 years might be La Ninas, and more.
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In the coastal town of So Sebastio, 627mm of rain fell in 24 hours, twice the expected amount for the month.
The town’s mayor, Felipe August, said the situation there was chaotic: “We have not yet gauged the scale of the damage. We are trying to rescue the victims.”
Some 50 houses had collapsed and were washed away, Mr Augusto added, saying that the situation remained “extremely critical”.
The state government reported at least 35 deaths in So Sebastio and in Ubatuba, some 80km (50 miles) north-east, a seven-year-old girl was killed when a boulder weighing two tonnes hit her home.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-64701062
The BBC is climate alarm central. The likelihood that 2 feet of water fell in 24 hours is slim to none. I’d say their rain gauge was sitting under a significant leak in an eaves trough.
C’mon, Bordon:
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/death-toll-brazil-floods-landslides-reaches-54-2023-02-24/
Stop being an idiot.
Arrogant ignoramuses will always be arrogant ignoramuses
https://www.poder360.com.br/brasil/chuva-se-deu-em-tempo-recorde-diz-prefeito-de-sao-sebastiao/
And some arrogant ignoramuses are even dumbasses.
“Arrogant ignoramuses will always be arrogant ignoramuses”
***
You should know, Binny, you excel at both.
Galactic radiation in the current solar cycle is still higher than in the previous cycle.
https://i.ibb.co/TTS4dJQ/onlinequery.png
That’s because we were in Grand Solar Max, when we started measuring it.
Roughly, our solar system has large bubble which created by our star.
And we have spacecraft which has left this bubble, but they are still
in our solar system- at least that is how think of our solar system,
but we know very little about what we consider our solar system.
Wiki:
“The heliosphere is the magnetosphere, astrosphere, and outermost atmospheric layer of the Sun. It takes the shape of a vast, bubble-like region of space. In plasma physics terms, it is the cavity formed by the Sun in the surrounding interstellar medium. The “bubble” of the heliosphere is continuously “inflated” by plasma originating from the Sun, known as the solar wind. Outside the heliosphere, this solar plasma gives way to the interstellar plasma permeating the Milky Way. As part of the interplanetary magnetic field, the heliosphere shields the Solar System from significant amounts of cosmic ionizing radiation; uncharged gamma rays are, however, not affected. Its name was likely coined by Alexander J. Dessler, who is credited with the first use of the word in scientific literature in 1967. The scientific study of the heliosphere is heliophysics, which includes space weather and space climate. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere
–Structure
Despite its name, the heliosphere’s shape is not a perfect sphere. Its shape is determined by three factors: the interstellar medium (ISM), the solar wind, and the overall motion of the Sun and heliosphere as it passes through the ISM. Because the solar wind and the ISM are both fluids, the heliosphere’s shape and size are also fluid. Changes in the solar wind, however, more strongly alter the fluctuating position of the boundaries on short timescales (hours to a few years). The solar wind’s pressure varies far more rapidly than the outside pressure of the ISM at any given location. In particular, the effect of the 11-year solar cycle, which sees a distinct maximum and minimum of solar wind activity, is thought to be significant. —
” Galactic radiation in the current solar cycle is still higher than in the previous cycle. ”
Wrong, Ireneusz Palmowski.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u0Lfnn0rnFmaTEcxzGswCuC_FHkbGxLH/view
Source
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
The graphic shows the circulation in the lower stratosphere over the next few days.
https://i.ibb.co/W2jM16K/gfs-z70-nh-f120.png
What did you guys think of Trump’s brilliant visit to East Palestine?
Conservative dog-whistling.
Here is what some people understand with ‘brilliant’.
” As President Biden took what was by all accounts a daring trip to Ukraine as Russia’s war on the country was heading toward its one-year anniversary, Republicans were criticizing Biden for going there instead of East Palestine.
Seeing a political opportunity, former President Donald Trump and a cadre of other conservatives descended on the small town of fewer than 5,000 residents. Trump handed out campaign hats, ‘Trump’-branded water, and Trump-branded insults of the Biden administration. ”
Yeah. The brilliant thoughts of the average 6.9L pick-up driver.
” In East Palestine, who ‘shows up’ isn’t necessarily a sign of who’s helping ”
Well said at NPR!
Binny,
I suppose you would support a guy who gets chauffeured around in a 10.4 L turbocharged gas guzzler – like President Biden.
Or flies around in a giant aircraft in sybaritic luxury like an Eastern potentate, surrounded by fawning yes-men, waited on hand and foot – like President Biden.
It’s supposedly a free world. I know you would like to exterminate (with maximal pain), all those who disagree with you, but luckily you have precisely no power to do so.
Accept reality – the universe is bizarre, Nature is absurd, and weather is unpredictable.
Mike Flynn,
You’re definitely more like Nature and the universe than weather.
But you’re more like a silly Sky Dragon crank.
In fact you’re a silly Sky Dragon crank.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Who is this Mike Flynn you keep braying about? Do you mean Errol Flynn?
More blathering from the pathological, egomaniac stalker Flynnson.
Binny,
I suppose you would support a guy who gets chauffeured around in a 10.4 L turbocharged gas guzzler like President Biden.
Or flies around in a giant aircraft in sybaritic luxury like an Eastern potentate, surrounded by fawning yes-men, waited on hand and foot like President Biden.
Its supposedly a free world. I know you would like to exterminate (with maximal pain), all those who disagree with you, but luckily you have precisely no power to do so.
Accept reality the universe is bizarre, Nature is absurd, and weather is unpredictable.
Bordon,
You feigned ignorance a few times already about who is Mike Flynn.
If you could stop playing dumb, that would be great.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Elon Musk Unveils a Tesla Cybertruck Challenge
The Cybertruck, which is Tesla’s very first pickup truck, is one of the most awaited vehicles of the decade.
Luc Olinga
https://www.thestreet.com/technology/elon-musk-unveils-a-tesla-cybertruck-challenge
And:
Elon Musk Attacked by an Old And Powerful Enemy
Ralph Nader, the consumer protection advocate, has launched a scathing charge against the billionaire he calls a “welfare king.”
Luc Olinga
https://www.thestreet.com/technology/elon-musk-attacked-by-an-old-and-powerful-enemy
Linked from: https://www.drudgereport.com/
“Elon Musk faces an opponent who hits hard like him.
This rival is, like him, used to not bending.
He is, like him, a defender of the people, whose interests he has been advocating on behalf for several decades now.
This is Ralph Nader, the former presidential candidate from 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008, a nationally recognized consumer protection advocate.”
#2
More blathering from the pathological, egomaniac stalker Flynnson.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Who?
Willard, please stop trolling.
norman…”Science comes up with models (mathematical) of how they think the Universe works but it is based upon the best available evidence at the time. It is not a flaw of science to change or update a model when new information comes in. Science is a fluid dynamic. Even with Climate Change it is fluid and changing as more research on the subject takes place”.
***
I don’t accept models as a valid form of science, unless they are validated. Modeling is a very soft form of science if it is a science.
They had no models in Newton’s day and his equivalent would have been a hypothesis, something Newton rejected as valid science as a standalone proof. A hypothesis is a statement you intend to prove through experimentation. If you feel the data supports your hypothesis, you frame it as a theory and publish it so others can test your theory.
The experiment is the scientific method which is stated roughly as…
1)state hypothesis
2)state method
3)describe apparatus and equipment
4)observations
5)conclusions
There are other variations of that method but I don’t see any that involve models.
The results of that method would be put forward in a paper and it SHOULD get to other scientists so they can test it. However, we now have the corrupt peer review process in which an appointed reviewer can look at the paper and reject it. One person, who as Roy has pointed out, may not be in any way familiar with the paper’s content, can decide whether it gets published or not.
That is not only insane, it is outright corruption of the scientific process. Now we have governments trying to go further and have any ideas that fly contrary to an opinion banned.
If we don’t stand up and fight this corruption we deserve what we get.
C’mon, Bordon.
“But Modulz” is silly:
https://climateball.net/but-modulz/
But “But Science” is sillier still:
https://climateball.net/but-science/
Contemporary sciences rely on model, whether you like it or not.
Perhaps you should revise your model of how science works.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Appealing to the authority of yourself via your climateballs, just makes you look like you have been playing with them too much.
You wrote – “Contemporary sciences rely on model, whether you like it or not.
Perhaps you should revise your model of how science works.”
No, scientists call their best guesses a “model” (as in Standard Model, in physics). At most, it is described as a “theory” which seems to be currently supported by experiment – good enough to use until someone demonstrates by experiment that it is wrong.
Your second sentence is an example of the scientifically ignorant poser, who obviously doesn’t understand or accept “the scientific method”.
You are an idiotic SkyDragon cultist, who cannot even describe the GHE, far less explain its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling. Your semantic games won’t help you change reality, no matter how much you stamp your little foot, or run crying to your Mommy.
Mike Flynn,
Citing Climateball Bingo is more a way to show how tired and boringly bad are contrarians’s usual talking points.
If you’re too dumb to get that citing isn’t exactly appealing to an authority, then that’s on you.
Nobody cares either way.
Weepy Wee Willy,
“Citing” and “Appealing to authority” look the same to me. Citing your silly climateballs, claiming you are not really appealing to your own authority, just makes you look like a typical SkyDragon cultist.
That’s all you have, isn’t it, Wee Willy? Whining about being bored won’t help.
If stamping your little foot and running to your Mommy didn’t work, you could threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue. Go on, give me a laugh!
I’ll repeat – you are an idiotic SkyDragon cultist, who cannot even describe the GHE, far less explain its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.
Maybe you could cite yourself spouting more irrelevant nonsense? How about linking to some irrelevant and pointless YouTube video? Do it 20 or 30 times – waste as much time as you like – I certainly won’t give a toss!
Keep trying to troll in the meantime. You might be able to annoy or offend someone of low mentality, I suppose.
Mike Flynn,
Citing saves me time.
Keep repeating.
Nobody cares.
Silly Sky Dragon crank!
Weepy Wee Willy,
Citing and Appealing to authority look the same to me. Citing your silly climateballs, claiming you are not really appealing to your own authority, just makes you look like a typical SkyDragon cultist.
Thats all you have, isnt it, Wee Willy? Whining about being bored wont help.
If stamping your little foot and running to your Mommy didnt work, you could threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue. Go on, give me a laugh!
Ill repeat you are an idiotic SkyDragon cultist, who cannot even describe the GHE, far less explain its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.
Maybe you could cite yourself spouting more irrelevant nonsense? How about linking to some irrelevant and pointless YouTube video? Do it 20 or 30 times waste as much time as you like I certainly wont give a toss!
Keep trying to troll in the meantime. You might be able to annoy or offend someone of low mentality, I suppose.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your silly ankle biting.
Copy-paste your comment again.
Willard, please stop trolling,
wee willy was too busy playing with himself under his raincoat during physics class to learn the scientific method.
Come on, Bordon.
You never did any science and it shows.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
You use models all the time. Any equation describing a physical process is a model.
T=2π√l/T is a model of pendulum behaviour.
i=e/R is a model of electron flow in a conductor.
What do you mean by validated? Ohm’s Law does not work for semiconductors and superconductors. Does that make it invalid?
When you calculate the future current flow in a circuit which you have not yet built, is that valid?
When you use the validated Navier-Stokes equations to calculate the state of a future climate, why do you regard that as invalid?
EM,
You wrote –
“When you use the validated Navier-Stokes equations to calculate the state of a future climate, why do you regard that as invalid?”
Because the IPCC said it is not possible to predict climate states? Actually, here’s a short quote from the IPCC – “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
The short term prediction is likewise impossible as climate is the statistics of past weather observations, and weather is itself unpredictable, being a chaotic system.
Got any more similar idiotic gotchas?
Maybe you have already claimed the $1,000,000 Clay Mathematics Institute prize for solving the Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness problem, but I doubt it. I can provide an initial value for the driving parameter for a simple quadratic function (the logistic difference equation), and I can guarantee that neither you nor anybody else can predict the value of, say, the 50th iteration. One simple quadratic. How hard can it be?
You really have no clue about reality, do you?
“You really have no clue about reality, do you?”
None at all. (smile emoji)
ent…” i=e/R is a model of electron flow in a conductor”.
***
It’s actually not a model but an equation describing the charge (not electron per se) flow in a circuit. I suppose if you use it as a problem for students it could be regarded as modeling a circuit but in real life, in a real circuit, it is not a model but an actual representation of the circuit.
*****
“What do you mean by validated?
***
If I design a circuit on a computer program like Pspice, that’s a model. I can run it on the computer complete with a faked input signal and it will give me a faked output signal. However, to validate it, I must build it with physical components and verify its response to a real input signal. If it behaves within the prescribed error margin I can claim the model is validated.
******
Ohms Law does not work for semiconductors and superconductors. Does that make it invalid?”
***
Ohm’s Law works perfectly well for semiconductors. How do you think we calculate base currents and collector currents when designing a circuit? The calculations are all based on the resistors used to establish bias points and voltage drops in the circuits, which are all based on Ohm’s Law.
For example, if I need a base current of so many milliamps running through the emitter-base junction of a BJT transistor, and I know the Veb voltage is 0.7 volts (standard for a silicon BJT transistor) and the power supply is 5 volts, what resistance do I need to limit the base current to 1 ma? Ohm’s Law….. 4.3 volts across what resistance gives me 1 ma? Calculate the resistance and you have the base resistor in a simple biasing scheme.
Here’s one problem of many. R = E/I = 4.3 volts/0.001 amps = 4300 ohms. Resistor are not normally made in exact values and they are rated with a tolerance, like +/- 5% for a good one. A standard value is 4700 ohms (4k7 ohms) and sometimes you can get them as 3900 ohms.
You modeled the circuit to run on a base resistor of 4300 ohms, what do you do? Compromise. That’s an advantage of modeling, it tells you what to expect….in electronics…because you can validate the model. Climate models cannot do the same.
If you are working with bulk circuits, you use Kircheoff’s Law and Thevenin’s. However, they are just glorified circuit rules based on Ohm’s Law.
******
When you calculate the future current flow in a circuit which you have not yet built, is that valid?
***
Calculations are done on paper…hardly a model. If you then apply your calculations to a computer program like Pspice, that models the circuit you plan to build, that’s the model.
You seem confused between a computer model and a real circuit.
****
When you use the validated Navier-Stokes equations to calculate the state of a future climate, why do you regard that as invalid?
***
Because it has not been validated. You cannot validate that kind of model till you see it in the atmosphere over a 30 year period. Thus far, since computer modeling began, not one model has been validated.
Navier-Stokes equations are differential equations of a very general nature that describes fluid flow. There is no way they can accurately define the ocean-atmosphere interface. Computers using such equations need to be programmed to model the interface therefore the programmers need to clearly understand the intricacies of the interface.
They don’t. A lead programmer at NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt, couldn’t even give a proper equation for positive feedback. Programmer’s have assumed a 9% to 25% warming factor for CO2 and they don’t have a shred of scientific evidence to back that claim.
Squishy outer shell may be resurfacing Venus
“”For so long we’ve been locked into this idea that Venus’ lithosphere is stagnant and thick, but our view is now evolving,” said Suzanne Smrekar, senior research scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, who led the study published in Nature Geoscience.
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Study_Finds_Venus_Squishy_Outer_Shell_May_Be_Resurfacing_the_Planet_999.html
” The researchers focused on 65 previously unstudied coronae that are up to a few hundred miles across. To calculate the thickness of the lithosphere surrounding them, they measured the depth of the trenches and ridges around each corona. What they found is that ridges are spaced more closely together in areas where the lithosphere is more flexible, or elastic. By applying a computer model of how an elastic lithosphere bends, they determined that, on average, the lithosphere around each corona is about 7 miles (11 kilometers) thick – much thinner than previous studies suggest. These regions have an estimated heat flow that is greater than Earth’s average, suggesting that coronae are geologically active.
“While Venus doesn’t have Earth-style tectonics, these regions of thin lithosphere appear to be allowing significant amounts of heat to escape, similar to areas where new tectonic plates form on Earth’s seafloor,” said Smrekar.”
While Venus doesnt have Earth-style tectonics, these regions of thin lithosphere appear to be allowing significant amounts of heat to escape, similar to areas where new tectonic plates form on Earths seafloor, said Smrekar.
Don’t tell Swenson. He will tell us that Venus is cooling.
EM,
I have some exceptionally upsetting news for you – everything that is hotter than its environment cools. It’s an immutable law of the universe, it seems.
Even the most importunate prayers of the SkyDragon cultists cannot change a single physical fact. Go on, exercise your vast SkyDragon knowledge and tell me why a body as hot as Venus cannot cool. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere? CO2 certainly didn’t stop the Earth from cooling (or anything else, for that matter).
Or you could just keep being silly, and try to save face.
It appears many think our universe is cooling.
It doesn’t appear we know much about our universe or Venus.
I will note the phrase “Venus doesnt have Earth-style tectonics”
seems to suggest some style of global tectonics activity is thought or considered, possible.
Earth’s oceanic rocky surface [most of Earth surface] is regarded as young, how old is Venus surface?
Or if take some arbitrary number of 50%, how old is the youngest, half of Venus?
And is this youngest half of Venus, older or younger than Earth’s youngest half?
I tend to favor the piecemeal younger Venus vs the other idea of global melting event as happening at some point in the Venus past.
https://www.planetary.org/articles/the-venus-controversy
There is a hypothesis that Venus does not have Earth’s steady rate of heat flow due to plate tectonics.
Instead you have an intermittent process in which the interior builds up heat from radioactive decay which eventually breaks out as massive flood basalt eruptions which resurface the planet.
Evidence?
1) Relatively low volcanic activity, so heat escaping to the surface slower than it is produced by radioactive decay in the interior.
2) Relatively few impact craters and they are not massively eroded. The number and condition are consistent with any craters more than 500 million old being buried under new basalt.
3) No magnetic field. Earth’s magnetic field is thought to come from a dynamo effect as the solid inner core and liquid outer core rotate at different rates. A hotter core has more liquid, less solid and a weaker dynamo.
4) Too much deuterium. When hydrogen leaves the atmosphere light hydrogen leaves more easily than heavy hydrogen. The high deuterium ratio is consistent with the addition of considerable water in the geologically recent past.
— Evidence?
1) Relatively low volcanic activity, so heat escaping to the surface slower than it is produced by radioactive decay in the interior.–
The “Low volcanic activity” and “so heat escaping to the surface slower” may be occurring now [last million years] or may not be occurring now [last million years].
Or “the theory” is at some point in time this is the case.
The accepted idea in regards to Earth, is the young and thin rocky
surface of ocean floor causes the most amount heat escaping from
Earth. You could say “volcanic activity” caused the thin crust but it’s the vast amount area newly created which cause more heat loss rather just the areas, one label as “volcanic active”.
But this idea might be wrong- or it may be what is labelled “volcanic activity” could be causing the majority of earth’s heat loss.
Your link: https://www.planetary.org/articles/the-venus-controversy
“There are also not very many impact craters, which suggests a youthful surface (on average, 200 to 700 million years old), unlike the ancient surfaces of the Moon, Mercury, and Mars.” And
“Some scientists have suggested that Venus old impact craters were erased by a global volcanic resurfacing event, a massive catastrophe that left it with no visible impacts craters at all. Other scientists disagree.”
–Trying to make sense of it all: catastrophic versus steady state
If the entirety of the Venusian surface was replaced by a worldwide volcanic event, how long did it take? Was it dramatic and catastrophic, completed in a hundred thousand years or less, or could it have been an incremental, yet still globally effective process stretched over more than a hundred million years? ”
Vs:
“Steady-state, on the other hand, implies numerous smaller, discrete processes, stretched out across time. For Venus, the steady-state model posits more frequent resurfacing episodes, more similar to the pace of volcanism on Earth, that obliterate older craters at the local scale over much longer timescales.”
Maybe, Steady-state can not described as “numerous smaller” but rather “numerous bigger”.
Or now is “numerous smaller” before and in future “numerous bigger”
Or now is “numerous bigger” and before and in future “numerous smaller”
Once upon a time, Earth had no impact craters, now, we counting more each year- and no one thinks we have counted them all.
This radical change, was due to the Apollo Program.
And without Apollo, we probably still arguing whether plate tectonic
theory is valid or not {or we would have a lot more “Gordon Robertsons”}.
And I will remind people, again, Apollo was not really about exploring the Moon. Rather Apollo was Cold War PR, or a race to
the Moon.
What happens if our purpose with current effort, is to determine whether the Moon has or has not have mineable water?
Also, even it’s said Mars lost it’s global plate tectonic about 3 billion years, ago. I would count that as true, or it’s just that this is what commonly said. {and said by small group of people- which mostly American {who have been really only landing stuff on the Mars, so far}.
If the resurfacing took place one area at a time there would be a lot of variation in impact crater density across Venus’ surface as different areas were resurfaced at different times.Since the rate of crater formation is fairly constant younger areas would have fewer craters.
Instead the distribution is fairly uniform, which suggests that the whole surface was resurfaced over a relatively short time period.
Made is half the diameter of Earth. That gives Mars 1/4 of the surface area of Earth and 1/8 the volume.
Mars therefore has twice the surface area:volume ratio and cooled twice as fast as Earth.
Mars interior is now too cool for the mantle to convect, so no plate tectonics and very little volcanic activity.
Nice thing about science. You can infer a lot about processes from surprisingly simple data.
“Instead the distribution is fairly uniform, which suggests that the whole surface was resurfaced over a relatively short time period.
Made is half the diameter of Earth. That gives Mars 1/4 of the surface area of Earth and 1/8 the volume.
Mars therefore has twice the surface area:volume ratio and cooled twice as fast as Earth.
Mars interior is now too cool for the mantle to convect, so no plate tectonics and very little volcanic activity.”
The Moon is covered with craters.
It’s considered to have less craters because later crater events erased earlier one. unless they very large craters which have been only partially “erased”.
Or there a lot more smaller rocks hitting the lunar surface- cars size space hit the Moon on a monthly, bus size yearly, building size every decade or two.
These size up to building size are not going to hit the Venus surface- the thick atmosphere will explode them before they reach the surface.
Recently, it’s thought there is more rubble pile asteroid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubble_pile
101955 Bennu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101955_Bennu
“Bennu was the target of the OSIRIS-REx mission which is intended to return its samples to Earth in 2023 for further study.”
Dimensions: 565 m 535 m 508
Is city blocks in size.
It probably mostly impact the Moon is as mostly one crater, with Earth, large parts of may hit fairly close to together. But it would not hit the Venus surface.
How big does it need to be or it be smaller if solid iron space rock.
I don’t know, I will google it: how big does space have to be to impact Venus rocky surface?
“Venus has an interesting limitation, however, in that craters smaller than about 1.52 km (11.2 miles) in diameter are not found. Their absence is attributable to the planets dense atmosphere, which causes intense frictional heating and strong aerodynamic forces as meteorites plunge through it at high velocities. The larger meteorites reach the surface intact, but the smaller ones are slowed and fragmented in the atmosphere. In fact, craters several kilometres in sizei.e., near the minimum size observedtend not to be circular. Instead they have complex shapes, often with several irregular pits rather than a single central depression, which suggests that the impacting body broke up into a number of fragments that struck the surface individually.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Venus-planet/Impact-craters
Doesn’t give “answer”. What else? Some more details:
https://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/exploring-the-planets/online/solar-system/venus/craters.cfm
“Width of image area: 630 km (390 mi.) ” and crater about 1/3, I would guess- correction less than 1/4. 630 / 5 = 126. So like dinosaur extinction crater, which is about 1 in 100 million year type
event for Earth.
It seems 1 in million years would not reach the surface, and mot likely 1 in 10 million would hit the surface- but could depending on space rock and angle it hit. dinosaur impactor, some think came at low angle, and at low angle with Venus impactor and depending type
I guess that a dinosaur type rock not might hit it’s surface.
The dinosaur impactor was global effect- it caused a massive earthquake on the opposite side of Earth.
But another unknown issue is how often does a impactors [large ones] hit Venus- compared to Earth/Moon or Mars.
Or more narrowly, what impact rate in terms of comets.
Impact rates with comets hitting Earth are generally regarded a rare compared space rock within Main Asteroid belt distance.
My guess is Venus gets hit with a bit more comets than Earth, but fewer rocks from inside the main belt.
Another factor anything hitting Venus would have much higher velocity- Earth average is about 20 km/sec whereas comets are +30 km/sec- and Venus about 40 km/sec. Or our dinosaur rock hit Venus, and hit the surface, it would have far more energy than hitting Earth.
Still heavy frost in northern US.
https://i.ibb.co/ZM8KQxd/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-02-26-081947.png
I have frost in Omagh.
Global warming has ended!
Your map making skills need improvement.
For a better perspective, take a look at this map. The US is a BIG country:
https://ibb.co/924GxLJ
Ren said the northern US and his map show the northern US. Maybe not all of it but enough to get the point across.
Note to Ren. Although you are technically correct calling that the northern US, for some unknown reason, it is called the Midwest. Makes no sense because it is barely west and some of it is east.
In Canada, right above the area you detail, we have no reference to midwest, just ‘the West’. That makes no sense either because Manitoba, where the West allegedly begins is in Central Canada.
I think the names date back to the early days when the true West had yet been discovered. At one time, the Manitoba area and the equivalent in the US, would have been ‘the West’. So, the Midwest might have been between that fake west and the Atlantic.
> enough to get the point across.
And what point would that be?
Come on, Bordon. Spell that one out.
Willard, please stop trolling.
A Climate Scientist talks to a room full of lawyers.
Texas A&M University, “2030, 2050, and Beyond: Creating Effective, Practical, and Realistic Climate Goals” symposium.
Great to see future lawyers engaged on how to solve the problem.
https://youtu.be/r__9kQqlxDE
TM, summer is coming.
Boo!
I thought you said climate scientist. Dessler is nothing more than a talking-head climate modeler.
C’mon, Bordon.
Read the post at the top of this page again.
Willard, please stop trolling.
It says, Dessler is a talking-head climate modeler.
Bordon.
C’mon.
The Planet Effective Temperature is only the FIRST STEP to mathematical APPROACH, and, therefore, the FORMULA:
Te = [So(1 -A)/4σ]∕ ⁴
is an IMPERFECT, and it is an INCOMPLETE equation for the Planet the Mean Surface Temperature (Tmean) the THEORETICAL calculation.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Code Red called as Adelaide suffers worst heat wave in three years
https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-items/code-red-called-as-adelaide-suffers-worst-heat-wave-in-three-years
A heat wave in Adelaide would be any sustained temperature above 20C.
C’mon, Bordon.
Do you have a point?
C’mon Willard,
Do you have a point?
Indeed I do, Mike Flynn.
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Report about an insignificant detail
From our German weather forecaster (translated using Google)
https://tinyurl.com/ycxv5ujf
*
” It has practically not rained in France for more than four weeks. After an already dry summer in 2022, February is facing another record.
Last Wednesday, France set a new negative record with 32 consecutive days without significant rain. Since [precipitation] weather records began in 1959, it has never been so dry in the winter months.
This is causing the soils to dry out, which is remarkable for the time of year and have already been weakened by the drought in summer 2022. The condition corresponds to how it is normally found in mid-April. The south of the country is particularly affected. Although there has been some rain in the past few days, it will be one of the driest February months since 1959.
Since the summer of 2021, France has been suffering from a worrying drought. Since August 2021, all months except December 2021, June 2022 and September 2022 have had a rain deficit. The winter of 2023 will even be one of the ten least rainy winters since 1959.
It follows a particularly warm and dry 2022. In addition to the lack of rain, France has had warmer than the long-term average for the past 12 consecutive months.
In addition, the snow cover in the mountains is less than usual at this time of the year. When the snow on the mountains melts in spring, it provides additional water supply for the rivers near the mountains. This replenishment of the water supplies is also expected to be significantly weaker this spring. “
binny…from article…”It has practically not rained in France for more than four weeks”.
***
So let me get this straight. Clouds come to the French border, north, south, east, and west, then simply terminate. No rain in Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, UK, Italy, or SW Germany?
And if there has been a drought, what is the point of your article? Is it yet another frail attempt to push the fake climate change meme?
Robertson
What a primitive, dumb post.
If you aren’t able to accurately read anything, no wonder when you aren’t able to reply anything else than trash.
Binny,
What’s the point of your weather report?
Are SkyDragons amazed that weather is chaotic – never repeating, always changing , unpredictable?
Mike Flynn,
What’s the point of this braying?
No need to show how cranky are Sky Dragon cranks.
We know you are.
Willard, please stop trolling.
#3
More blathering from the pathological, egomaniac stalker Flynnson.
Blinny and Wiltard are bought and paid for (among others) propagandists, Nazi ilk. They’re damn liars.
Troglodyte and Eboy are prosaic troglodytes.
Willard, please stop trolling.
And if that nonsense wasn’t not enough, here comes the ultra-right wing Anderson calling me once more a Nazi.
Anderson: you are an asshole.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Blinny,
COVID does not have a natural origin. Was that a conspiracy theory? ALWAYS wrong.
NASA Sun Science
Happy #SunDay! This weeks space weather report includes 13 notable solar flares, 26 coronal mass ejections, and
NO GEOMAGNETIC STORMS.
The current graphic shows that galactic radiation in the 25th cycle is still higher than in the 24th cycle. If anyone claims otherwise he is a liar.
https://i.ibb.co/X2nHhbF/onlinequery.png
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
Palmowski
You can call me a liar all you want: I won’t be impressed.
Solar cycle SC24 began in December 2008 and ended 11 years later in December 2019.
So to compare SC24 and SC25 you need to overlay the two cycles and compare the value for
– January 2023 (6061);
to that for
– January 2012 (6395).
Also, if you calculate the average monthly value from the beginnings, i.e. for Dec 2008 – Jan 2012 and for Dec 2019 – Jan 2023, you get the following:
SC24: 6613
SC25: 6620
SC25 averages only 0.1% (!!!) higher than SC24 and we are currently a long way from SC24’s Oulu NC minimum (6003 in March 2015).
*
Download the monthly data from the website and compare the downloaded values instead of guessing what you think you see in a picture.
Overlaying graphs is your trick, but the real state is real.
This is not a trick: it is the reality you cannot accept because you tirelessly search for even the slightest sign of an incoming GSM.
No two solar cycles are identical, both as to duration and magnetic activity.
That does not mean we can’t compare them on the basis of the same observation tool.
Is it not strange that you accept the monthly SSN comparisons of SC24 versus SC25
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hR2WPoQZlvdLCXwhpG8ffbJqTgNSdVBU/view
published everywhere, but reject the same comparison in the Oulu context?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GlQPlmaj7jvD497i_N0ipzX_-aVGKpSk/view
That gives no sense.
Today’s geomagnetic storm is caused by the solar wind from a coronal hole at the solar equator.
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/images/grafieken/aurora-map.jpg
The 30-day SOI shows that La Nina is not over.
https://i.ibb.co/t4NNcfW/soi30.png
SOI values for 26 Feb, 2023
Average SOI for last 30 days 10.64
Average SOI for last 90 days 14.01
Daily contribution to SOI calculation 15.08
Tropical depression in northern Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/D8HmYYY/mimictpw-ausf-latest.gif
Interestingly, BoM’s SOI values are nearly always exaggerated when the values indicate El Nino, but always correct in the opposite La Nina case.
Mad Bindidog barking and biting Ren’s ankles relentlessly
As you can see, little ankle biting dachshund: I can play ankle biting too, especially with people who unduly call me a liar.
You are the biggest lying piece of scum on this blog
Some proof(s) for your rather speculative allegation, dachshund?
I await them.
Binny,
There are no “proofs” in science.
Only the ignorant think such things.
#4
More blathering from the pathological, egomaniac stalker Flynnson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVqGEtPj0M0
Defence strategy for small nations – force design, friends, and deterrence on a budget
A 101 lesson in general Military matters, which is somewhat amusing.
[New Zealand vs Aussie land]
Non-Global Warming
“Short post. Here are the satellite-determined temperature trends of the various area of the lower troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere. ”
Starting from 1980 to now, global average is about .6 C
“Short conclusion, to match the short post. The warming may be many things, but its not global ”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/27/non-global-warming/
Anyone think in short time period [less than 5 years] the .6 will
go up a lot, to .8 C or go down a lot, to .4 C?
Or getting around that time of month again, what guess for Feb?
So, Jan was quite low, and fell for 3 months. Or it took a steep dive, I tend to think it won’t continue to fall like a rock, but I doubt it’s going leap up dramatically.
> The warming may be many things, but its not global
So Willis needs another logic lesson.
Whining Wee Willy,
Did you have to put a lot of effort in being such a fool, or does it come naturally?
Look at what you wrote.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“The warming may be many things, but its not global”
***
We have been pointing that out for years, there is no significant warming over most of the planet.
🤦♂️
Willard, please stop poking yourself in the eye. It won’t get you any sympathy.
Mike Flynn,
Are you so dumb or uneducated as not recognizing a facepalm?
Silly Sky Dragon crank boomer!
Weepy Wee Willy,
If you are claiming you are only smacking yourself about the face, how can I disagree?
That won’t get you any sympathy either.
Explaining the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling might be more attention getting.
How hard can it be?
What are you braying about, Mike?
Too dumb to realize how dumb you are?
That is quite possible!
Keep braying.
Well, since we are in an Ice Age, the only significant aspect would be accelerated warming, but we aren’t getting this.
If there is any worry, it’s governments have wasted trillions of dollars saying the money is related to reducing CO2 levels- and with trillions dollars, have not done, and are policies which can not reduce CO2 levels.
And only thing that reduces CO2 levels- which has reduced CO2- is an increase in using natural gas and continued use nuclear energy- which governments given trillion have been constantly opposed to doing.
In short the only change needed is changing the governments who have already committed crimes of wasting tax dollars.
And realizing any govt can’t and should try to change global climate-
and they have important things to do, like don’t start any more wars and etc.
Warming is indeed accelerating, gb –
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00585-7
Keep to Martian stuff.
Where do you live, Willard?
Where are the trillions, gb?
Some say, China, but they are misinformed.
But China is one of your favorite moves, gb.
It does not answer the question tho.
Another stratospheric intrusion on the West Coast and a heavy snowstorm in the Sierra Nevada. Roads will be impassable.
https://i.ibb.co/3vjtX6m/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f024.png
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The Rideau Canal Skateway will not open this winter, making this season the first one ever without the popular pastime and tourist draw.
The National Capital Commission (NCC) said Friday afternoon the closure is disappointing, but the weather didn’t co-operate.
“This winter’s higher-than-average temperatures, snow and rain contributed to a thin and porous ice surface,” it tweeted.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/rideau-canal-skateway-2023-season-closed-1.6738557
wee willy…for Ottawa…
“Environment Canada’s forecast calls for a low of -8 C Thursday night and -16 C on Friday, followed by above-seasonal temperatures on Saturday and Sunday. The long-range forecast does call for lows of -15 C on Monday and -14 C on Tuesday”.
Oh, that global warming is so dangerous.
You ought to ask a fellow crank to go skate on the Rideau river, Bordon.
C’mon. You can do it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Would not attempt that, Environment Canada and our PM are likely salting the ice to make it melt faster.
Come on, Bordon.
Willard, please stop trolling.
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
ROME, Italy – Business didnt dry up, but some of Venices famous gondoliers have had to limit their movements in recent weeks after water levels in some of the Italian citys smaller canals dropped because of unusually low tides.
We have had four exceptional low tides, and each time the water was so low in certain canals that we had to steer away from them, one gondolier, Andrea Balbi, told NBC News on Thursday.
I have been a gondolier for 28 years, and I have never seen so many low tides at once, he added.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/venices-canal-run-dry-low-tides-lack-rainfall-tourism-rcna71943
Whacky Wee Willy,
From Venice Tourism (not NBC) –
“How common were low tides in the past? How common are they now?
In the past, there could be up to a few hundred low tides every year!
Today, low tides are much less frequent.”
You are really a stupid SkyDragon, aren’t you? Do you just accept mainstream media nonsense as gospel? Facts are facts. There is no GHE. You can’t even describe why it hasn’t stopped anything from cooling over the last four and a half billion years.
So sad, too bad.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Have you heard of a thing called the URL?
Is it too hard for you to copy a link opin your tablet?
Silly Sky Dragon crank boomer!
Whacky Wee Willy,
From Venice Tourism (not NBC)
“How common were low tides in the past? How common are they now?
In the past, there could be up to a few hundred low tides every year!
Today, low tides are much less frequent.”
You are really a stupid SkyDragon, aren’t you? Do you just accept mainstream media nonsense as gospel? Facts are facts. There is no GHE. You can’t even describe why it hasn’t stopped anything from cooling over the last four and a half billion years.
So sad, too bad.
I have noted your attempted diversion about links and the silliness of SkyDragons who believe in the non-existent GHE, and will ignore it, of course.
Mike Flynn,
You said –
*I said*
Nobody cares what you said.
Venice actually has more floods than ever:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/eye-of-the-storm/venice-has-its-worst-flood-in-53-years/
It does not prevent it from having more severe droughts.
Extreme events do not imply what you make them imply.
Long live and prosper.
Galactic radiation is extremely sensitive to the Sun’s magnetic activity. Take a fresh look at the increase in GCR since the previous solar cycle.
https://i.ibb.co/XjYMC3k/onlinequery.gif
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
You can see it better in the chart below.
https://i.ibb.co/crxVg9R/onlinequery-1.gif
Repeating ad nauseam the same wrong thing doesn’t make it true:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-ii-evidence-that-homogenization-spuriously-warms-trends/#comment-1451727
Compare what is comparable: Jan 2012 with Jan 2023.
The following chart shows the cumulative number of known Near-Earth Asteroids (NEAs) versus time.
https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/stats/totals.html
31,360 of all sizes
The ones larger than 1 km diameter haven’t changed much over the years. The ones over 140 meter diameter are 10,405 as Feb 23 2023.
Something like thousand found over last year.
I was wondering if some these [probably most likely smaller than +140 meter] are going hit something, like planet Venus or other space rocks.
And what got me wondering, was I like to know how many space rocks hit Venus.
We are watch the Moon and count how many hit it and we should able to do same with Venus.
Or what first thought of, are any small rocks which are missing or going possibly be missing in future.
But it seems directly looking at Venus is better.
RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT
12 August 2022
First space rock found inside Venuss orbit and its jumbo-sized
An asteroid that travels inside the orbit of Venus probably wandered there from further afield.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02174-0
“Astronomers have spotted the first asteroid known to circle the Sun entirely within the orbit of Venus.”
Earth life may have traveled to Venus aboard sky-skimming asteroid
By Mike Wall
published September 24, 2020
I tried googling: “small space rocks detected which could hit Venus or Mars” nor “small NEAs detected which could hit Venus or Mars”- didn’t see anything.
Anyhow, what would work to detect small car sized rocks hitting Venus? Highly elliptical orbit, say 300 to 400 km by 40,000 km ?
Science Denying Senator Falls to Long Covid
Biology, like physics, has rules that we violate at our peril.
TM,
What precise rules of biology has this 88 year old violated?
It’s possible that some 88 year old men do not enjoy the same health and physical condition as when they were, say, 18 years of age.
Do you find this surprising? I don’t.
By the way, what “science” was he he supposedly “denying”?
You are sounding like a dim-witted SkyDragon, but of course you a free to prove otherwise.
duly noted.
From the onset of the pandemic Trump supporters advanced two radically contradictory arguments:
1) Coronavirus, they said, was made in a Chinese lab, a bio-weapon launched against the world.
2) Coronavirus was no big deal, just a cold, could be treated with horse dewormer.
Once the vaccines come online, a third story line would join the mix:
3) The vaccines were a secret plot by globalists
Tyson,
Not sure how they are radically contradictory arguments. History has shown that as a bio-weapon, covid19 served China’s purpose well. It scared the hell out of many individuals, culled their elderly population, and got Trump off their back concerning trade negotiations. For many Trump supporters, Covid19 was no big deal, but they still saw it as released from the Wuhan lab. This is neither contradictory nor radical. The latest from DOE is that Covid19 did come from the Wuhan lab. It is also extremely unlikely that a healthy individual would have a sever outcome from Covid19.
I am not sure of the effectiveness of Ivermectin but from my own experience vitamin D and Airbourne (OTC vitamin/mineral supplement) kept my immunity up. When my covid19 vaccinated (employment pressured) sister-in-law came to visit, she had no symptoms, boarded a flight and started showing symptoms while visiting us. Turns out her grandmother and mother both came down with Covid19 while she was visiting them first (most likely her source of infection). It was safe to assume she infected my family, we had no other source we could think of.
While my unvaccinated body dispatched it in 24 hours with mild temperature and congestion, she had bad symptoms for 3 weeks. We kept her isolated in our household during that time (that was fun) My unvaccinated children dispatch it in 48 hours mild temperature and congestion. We had been giving them a dose of elderberry syrup to keep their immunity up. My vaxxed and boosted wife (due to employment pressure) had bad symptoms for 2 weeks. My wife (management) and sister-in-law (professor) work for universities and though not mandated, there was a lot of pressure to do so. Interesting thing though is when I showed the data to my sister-in-law, she agreed, getting vaccinated when healthy was dumb, she actually held out but felt guilty and got vaccinated months prior to taking the summer off knowing she was coming to visit. Fortunately, my children did not miss any school.
As far as Trump supporters advancing that vaccines are a plot by globalist. Maybe, but I don’t see a lot of that from them. I see them suggest a big pharma profiteering angle by using fear/political connections, than a globalist plot to take over the world.
> covid19 served Chinas purpose well
See for yourself:
https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-china-500
As for your personal anecdote, Billy Bob, how do you know when a substance can boost your immunity system?
” For many Trump supporters, Covid19 was no big deal,”
So much so that a new award was created just for them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain_Award
Science advances one funeral at a time.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Go on, tell us what “boost your immune system” means?
Neither you, nor anyone else, completely understands the workings of the human body.
What determines who gets influenza? Why do some people die, others just get a sniffle, or no symptoms at all?
If someone dies as a result of kissing a girl who recently ate a peanut butter sandwich, was their “immune system” in need of a “boost”?
Idiot trolls like yourself spout complete nonsense, and can never provide details to back up their lofty assertions. The SkyDragon cult assertion that a “greenhouse effect” is raising the temperature of the planet is one such unsupported assertion.
Carry on trolling. Have you actually managed to @nnoy or offend any rational person yet?
Donkey.
Mike Flynn,
Since you’re being slow, being on a sabbatical and all –
Click on “5 years”:
https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-china-500
Then click on “compare,” and choose the S&P 500.
You should see that China did not win anything.
Cheers.
Weeping Wee Willy,
China? Have you lost your mind?
I don’t intend to clock on anything – particularly if it’s completely irrelevant.
Please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Nobody cares if you intend to clock or not.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Apart from you, possibly?
You don’t seem to realise that I don’t care what other people think, or whether they care what I think. Why do you bother with such completely irrelevant comments?
Whether or not I clock, click, clack or cluck, is up to me, and I don’t care what you think about it.
How are you going explaining the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? Not well?
Boo hoo.
> Apart from you
No, Mike. No even I.
Do you really think I provide links for you?
Herman Cain Award. According to the moderators, by October 2021, 2,393 people had been nominated for the award, 2,515 people had received the award, and 71 people had received IPAs.
I wonder why they stopped counting? Seems like good information to have. Probably would be more meaningful if they gave us a health background (comorbidity/age). But probably just being playful. But again, for most healthy individuals Covid19 was mild, unless of course you got the vaccine.
You can probably volunteer to count yourself:
https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/
Probably.
That last sentence of yours deserves due diligence.
A cite would be nice.
Weary Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“A cite would be nice.” Oh, yeah? The SkyDragon troll demands spoon-feeding again?
Are you too lazy or too incompetent to find information for yourself? If you have grounds for disagreement, why not just state them?
Not slimy or devious enough for you? You give the appearance of being a gutless SkyDragon cultist, trying hard to look wise by making someone else look foolish.
Do your own research – explain the role of your “greenhouse effect” in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, if you need somewhere to start. How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You said –
“The SkyDragon troll demands spoon-feeding again?”
Why are you saying stuff that defeats your sole purpose on this website?
Willard, please stop trolling.
It seems Trump support were correct about many things.
I can’t think of anything the Biden supporter were correct
about, can you give one?
It seems Biden caused a war in Europe, and there is a concern China going to start a war in the Pacific.
I like Biden because he is a weak president, but weak president doesn’t need to start wars.
” It seems Biden caused a war in Europe… ”
Biden never caused any war in Europe, gbaikie.
The origin of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine lies chiefly – behind the very clear command of Putin and his nomenklatura – in the impression Obama and later Trump gave to Russians that America has ceased to care about maintaining democracy around the world.
It seems a main complaint is US spends too much money concerning “maintaining democracy around the world” or I don’t see much praise
for US spending all this money- outside of US.
And we have Canadian leader which praises China- which has spending a lot on a military, it doesn’t need.
One can’t say, the huge military China is building, has anything to do with “maintaining democracy around the world”.
The idea of reducing CO2 emission by having China make things- like a lot of steel, hasn’t lowered global CO2 levels.
And it seems China is using it’s cheap steel to make a huge Navy.
Trump did provide some weapons and some military training to Ukraine-
but is not really well versed on Military matters and like any US President depended on US military {and on Congress} to do such things. And we had crazy women who failed to impeach the President, twice. Plus we had very corrupt intel and FBI- which was cause mostly
by Obama- there is some reporting about that, but the corporate news, is not really doing news. And it has been exposed, the US govt, was involved with Twitter. And obviously it wasn’t limited to Twitter.
The US govt is NOT suppose to do this- it violate the US constitution. Violating US constitution is very serious issue- far more than say Mass shooting- which is obviously caused by a bad government policies. Anyhow such high crimes by intel require long jail times and possibly execution of these criminals. And it seems US Congress is investigating this, but wheels of justice are said to take a long time.
One thing, outsiders don’t know, is Biden administration is essentially a continuation of the Obama administration.
Biden is one of many corrupt politicians- or as P said, glasses of
water. They are called professional politician but their is nothing
professional about them, unless the profession is being stupid clowns. He had no executive experience and he is currently, brain dead. We have recently elected a Senator who is known to be brain dead, and his wife escaped to Canada.
Endless amounts news here, which is not being done.
Anyhow, so without considering the know facts, Biden couldn’t be able to create an administration.
Report on Afghan Withdrawal Details the Spectacular Failings of the Biden Administration
By Rick Moran 10:13 AM on February 28, 2023
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2023/02/28/report-on-afghan-withdrawal-details-the-spectacular-failings-of-the-biden-administration-n1674311
Linked by https://instapundit.com/
“The Afghanistan debacle was 20 years in the making and involved four presidential administrations. But the pivotal last two years of U.S. assistance to Afghanistan proved decisive in creating the conditions that led to the fall of the U.S.-backed government and the loss of $7 billion in military equipment to the Taliban.”
About 1/6th the cost to develop SLS. Or about 1/2 the cost to launch 1 SLS rocket.
Anyways, probably kill a lot of afghans.
The Left with their over population ideology tend to want to kill as many humans as possible.
Can I give one thing a Biden supporter was correct about? Very difficult gbaikie. Most of the people I know that voted for Biden didn’t vote for Biden, they just voted against the orange man. They now are a bit embarrassed with the results of the Biden administration. For the few that did vote for Biden the man, their claim to me was he would be nice and not divisive. I would say that would be the closest to be correct as anything, though most of that is positive media coverage compared to Trump. Biden is still divisive, just media does not call it out as much.
Hi billy bob
” Most of the people I know that voted for Biden didnt vote for Biden, they just voted against the orange man. ”
How much is that compared to those who vote for Biden because they thought he would be the right guy?
billy bob, you behave far more credible and less superficial when you discuss about temperature measurements than about politics.
Good afternoon Bindidon, or evening for you.
Because I work for local/state governments and my wife works for the university, most of my friends tend lean liberal. As far as my small universe, most are sadden by the policies pursued by Biden and the divisive state of the union address. They also thought the withdrawal from Afghanistan was not well thought out. In a word, theirs, it was horrendous. Some say it emboldened Putin to invade Ukraine. May be what gbaikie was referring to.
As far as compared to my friends who thought Biden was the right guy. I have to confess, only one has said so. She is a self described socialist who claims she is farther left than Bernie Sanders. But we get along anyway.
As far as my politics, I have self described myself as a libertarian at the national level, republican at the state level and democrat at the local level. I am not a member of any specific party though and don’t necessarily vote based on each level of government. I have voted democratic in national and republic in local elections, but because of the person, not their party affiliation. Of course this is all USA politics.
I rely mostly on just being honest and discussing what I know to maintain my credibility. My friends trust what I say is not a lie, and if I disagree with them I avoid name calling. But we are all human, sometimes we can get nasty with one another. Not very productive I think. However, I do welcome criticism, especially if it is constructive.
How bout you?
Thank you very much billy bob for your – as usual – very convenient reply.
I can understand that many people in America who were happy to get rid of the MAGA syndrome now are way less satisfied, especially concerning what happened in Afghanistan.
But as an European, I can’t simply look at Biden’s activities like was written e.g. here:
https://www.risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/10/who-is-responsible-for-the-afghanistan-withdrawal-debacle
I prefer to look at things like this:
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/
*
What these unsatisfied people all forget is:
– what really else would have happened in Afghanistan if the Trumping boy had won the election?
– what would have happened after 2022, Feb 24 with the Ukraine with the Trumping boy as a president who said a few days later: “Putin is genial” ?
*
Moreover my next question: what is the average income of “Most of the people I know” ?
Bindidon asks what really else would have happened in Afghanistan if the Trumping boy had won the election?
what would have happened after 2022, Feb 24 with the Ukraine with the Trumping boy as a president who said a few days later: Putin is genial ?
*
Moreover my next question: what is the average income of Most of the people I know ?
Hard to say what Trump would have done (Afghanistan/Ukraine). The main reason I did not vote for Trump was he came off as a schemer. He is a person that would keep his friends close and his enemies closer. I never read his book the Art of the Deal but I have heard that confrontation is part of his persona. He could say one thing just to achieve an objective he desired. We will never know if he would have reneged on the Afghan pull-out or go in guns blazing if Putin invaded Ukraine. I lived in NJ during his real estate hey day, thought he was a bit unstable then too.
In his defense, he actually had some good economic policies pre-covid. The economy was very strong.
As far as average income of my friends, that would not tell the whole story. My friends have a varied background of income from d just above poverty levels and struggling to make ends meet (local govt workers) to university professors making 6 figures. Average is probably $75k/year. My wife and I don’t quite make 6 figures, but we are getting close.
Thanks billy bob… sounds ‘ehrlich’ as the Krauts around me say.
The next point concerning the Trumping boy’s global politics I read this evening in Le Monde:
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/02/28/en-iran-des-particules-d-uranium-enrichies-a-pres-de-90-seuil-requis-pour-produire-une-bombe-atomique_6163666_3210.html
” The agreement, known by the acronym JCPOA, has been moribund since the withdrawal of the United States, decided in 2018 by President Donald Trump. In the process, the Islamic Republic gradually freed itself from its commitments. ”
MAGA (in reality MTGF, Make Trump Great Forever) seems to have had its high price outside the US…
Have a nice day, as poster Massimo wrote years ago :–)
billybob…”We will never know if he would have reneged on the Afghan pull-out or go in guns blazing if Putin invaded Ukraine”.
***
I think we know the answer to the Ukraine situation. Trump was no fan of the Ukraine and he was one of the only politicians who could talk to Putin. It’s not that Putin is hard to talk to, it’s that the West can’t seem to move out of its Cold War impression of Russia, and Putin is saddled with that impression.
Putin wanted to join NATO and he was rejected. In fact, the West lied to him about NATO expansion, assuring him they would not expand beyond Germany. When they tried to expand into the Ukraine, he drew the line.
You have to dig for that information because the western media don’t reveal it. However, the sources are credible, people like Professor John Mearsheimer, an expert on US foreign policy who is willing to call a spade a spade.
Mearsheimer predicted the current war in 2015 if we did not stop bs-ing Russia and continued to ‘poke the bear with a stick’, as he put it.
The West caused the current war by failing to hold the Ukraine accountable as a democracy for allowing a coup that removed a democratically-elected president in 2014. Also, by forcing Russia’s hand by continuing to encroach on lines they had drawn in the sand.
I have no love for Putin, it’s not like he is a role model or that I admire the way he does business. I have nothing in common with him. However, if I see some punk harassing a street fighter and he gets his butt kicked, I am not going to step in and defend him. In this case, NATO is the punk, who without the US is nothing.
Trump recognized that and called them on it. There was no way. IMHO, that Trump would have bailed out the Ukraine as Biden has done.
> You have to dig for that information because the western media dont reveal it. However,
C’mon, Bordon.
You just have to make things up as you go along.
Just like you did any other day on this website for more than ten years.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordan,
I would have to agree with you concerning Russia/USA situation. NATO lost an opportunity to nurture that relationship after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Might have been fear, inability to get out of the cold war paradigm or just the military industrial complex seeing a threat to their bottom line. As far as the west causing the war in Ukraine, is like saying a women caused her rape for wearing provocative clothes.
Someone suggested I talk about Mars, more.
I always thought the Mars cult was interesting.
I think it was caused mostly from NASA constantly saying it was going
to Mars, when NASA had no chance of going to Mars.
So people who realized this, like Robert Zubrin talked about how one could send people to Mars. And he wrote a book, A Case for Mars,
“The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why ..”
One thing he wanted was a big rocket, and one thing NASA could do
was to make variant of the Space Shuttle, some like a Shuttle C.
And that’s basically what we got with SLS.
I thought a Shuttle C would be good thing, because one could make one
pretty quick and it wouldn’t cost much, but SLS wasn’t quick and costed a lot.
Every time, the Shuttle killed crew, there was study of basically, regarding, why. One issue I agreed with, was the whole premise of Shuttle was wrong- which roughly, the Space Shuttle was essentially an experimental rocket, and NASA was considering it and using it as an operational rocket.
One reason NASA might have made this mistake, was that the Saturn V rocket was very successful.
One given reason making the Space Shuttle was provide cheaper rocket as compared to using the Saturn V but the Saturn V was pretty cheap rocket.
But the reason we got rid of Saturn V, is we didn’t want to explore the Moon. The Saturn V was only made because we wanted to fastest way to send crew to the Moon and return them safely. We wanted to win the race to the Moon, and once race was done, get rid the the rocket which allow us to go the Moon or go to Mars.
Russia Reveals Antarctica Is Not What We’re Being Told!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh-2ndWRW54
gb…Couldn’t listen to the dweeb commenting with his breathless voice and feigned emotion. Seems the entire film is a promo for climate change propaganda.
Sure you’ve got the right video?
Oh, I thought was interesting- and funny, especially the title- nothing about Russians- more about Peru.
But, maybe it was played in Russia, I don’t know.
I probably watch more nature shows as compared to anything else,
but I don’t like to listen the all the announcers who are drooling mindlessly.
So in category, nature shows, can you name one or a few which are better?
I promise to watch it.
In most nature shows I watch, they can’t help themselves spreading propaganda about climate change. Apparently the world is no longer warming, it’s just the global climate that is changing, whatever that is.
” Apparently the world is no longer warming, its just the global climate that is changing, ”
Think of global warming as the global average temperature increase and climate change as the consequences.
You should think of global warming as increasing uniformity in Global temperature- and less climate change- unless greening deserts are climate change.
The transformation of the Green Sahara to it’s present is largest
recent climate change- so turning back to grasslands would likewise
be the biggest climate change.
ent…”Think of global warming as the global average temperature increase and climate change as the consequences”.
***
I got that a long time ago but questions have arisen.
1)what is a global average temperature? Not the value but the meaning?
2)If climate responds to an average global temperature, what is a global average climate?
3)If the global average has risen a claimed 1C in the past 170 years, how can such a trivial increase affect climates? In other words, far too much emphasis is being placed on a relatively trivial rise in temperature. That is especially true when one considers the planet was 1C to 2C cooler than normal 170 years ago, whatever normal means.
“1)what is a global average temperature? Not the value but the meaning?”
Average daily high surface air temperature and daily low surface air temperature, globally and generally per year and averaged over as short as 17 years or 30 years.
They say the global average temperature of 20th century was about 14 C, currently they say it’s about 15 C.
The global land is about 10 C and global ocean surface is about 17 C
and South Hemisphere is about 1 C colder then Northern hemisphere- I would say partial due Antarctica and northern hemisphere has more land in Tropics {Africa, mostly} and the Pacific Ocean.
2)If climate responds to an average global temperature, what is a global average climate?
Wetter warmer, drier colder.
3)If the global average has risen a claimed 1C in the past 170 years, how can such a trivial increase affect climates? In other words, far too much emphasis is being placed on a relatively trivial rise in temperature. That is especially true when one considers the planet was 1C to 2C cooler than normal 170 years ago, whatever normal means.
They say about 1 C in about 100 years.
It mostly affect regions nearer to the poles, and a wetter world.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Exceptional warm spell in Eastern Mediterranean with temperatures up to 29C in Greece,Cyprus and Turkey, 34C in Israel and over 35C in Libya.
Today more records were broken including:
27.0C Lattakia AP in Syria,26.0C Finike in Turkey and 22.3C Mineral ‘ Nye Vody in Russia.
https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1630637330494046213
Solar wind
speed: 636.4 km/sec
density: 1.16 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 192
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 161 sfu
Updated 28 Feb 2023
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 22.68×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.7% Below Average
48-hr change: -1.7%
{both thermosphere and neutral counts are
improving as one could expect from solar max
and we big coronal hole swinging towards us which
isn’t so much of solar max thing.]
Feb going sideways from Jan, I guessing Mar will lower
more than Feb, but I think Apr will see uptick vs Jan
and continue going up [more active lower neutron- reaching lowest level and warmest thermosphere for months.
” Sunspot number: 192
Updated 28 Feb 2023 ”
Are the SpaceWeather people kidding us, gbaikie?
Here is the end of
https://tinyurl.com/2kbbk845
at 22:30 GMT + 1:
2023 02 26 2023.155 138 16.7 30 35
2023 02 27 2023.158 144 15.9 24 29
2023 02 28 2023.160 106 11.1 29 34
Whom would you trust?
Well it won’t be first mistake recently and doesn’t align
with flux, but one day doesn’t make much difference for
the month.
Sunspot number: 100
Updated 28 Feb 2023
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Or whole thing:
Solar wind
speed: 631.2 km/sec
density: 0.09 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 100
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 161 sfu
Updated 28 Feb 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 22.68×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.7% Below Average
48-hr change: -1.7%
Solar wind
speed: 540.9 km/sec
density: 11.81 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 105
Updated 02 Mar 2023
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 162 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 23.47×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.9% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.9%
Getting spots coming farside side,
but I think they be around sunspot number 100 or lower
for next couple weeks.
https://www.thespacereview.com/
Has a few interesting articles this week- I posted on one of them.
The Bulwark is disappointed in Jeb
James Lileks
February 28, 2023 (2 Hours Ago)
https://ricochet.com/1392596/the-bulwark-is-disappointed-in-jeb/
I like Lileks, [he is funny] but haven’t reading him much lately, but
http://www.transterrestrial.com/ linked to him.
I should know what the Bulwark means, but Lileks says a lot
strange things- I guess mean mass and stupid and unchanging -though
has a merit of being predictable. Or what passes for conservative {which is not very active at conserving anything].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTYkEjSTif4
Scott is doing what he wished Trump would do.
Or Scott was angry Trump, failed to do it.
Anyhow bookmarked Lileks- and it had something
on Scott:
https://ricochet.com/1392747/how-to-listen-to-scott-adams-if-you-must/
Here is a SC23-SC24-SC25 comparison using the monthly SILSO SSN (Feb 23 is an average of the last month’s daily EISN values):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CQoF9NsU9LaT4V9xWBxkO5HM8K6KjTtN/view?usp=sharing
*
SC23 was surprisingly longer than SC24, and looking for possible consequences, I found this:
The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24
Solheim, Stordahl, Humlum (2012)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000417
Interesting to read, to say the least.
We are now looking at UAH 6.0 LT for the globe (Humlum & Co analyzed Norway and the Atlantic but… their title clearly suggests ‘global’), and compare the trends in Celsius per decade for the two solar cycles:
– SC23 (Aug 1996 – Dec 2008): -0.05 +- 0.04
– SC24 (Dec 2008 – Dec 2019): +0.32 +- 0.05
I have never trusted Humlum in anything he has (co)written, nor will I begin.
Well, I think 25 will be higher, but much shorter.
And in terms climate or other things, I would say, shorter is
weaker. But also Solar Grand Min is short {maybe}- and so can’t have much effect upon Climate, though could have an effect upon weather.
And once we have it, we might know more about it’s effects on weather.
It could be a huge advance in understanding it.
But don’t think we can know if we going to have Solar Grand Min, yet.
I think we could have more of clue within 1 year.
And 1 year is quite a short time period, regarding this topic.
If don’t know in a year, I would say, chances favor not having a Grand Solar Min.
And far less disruption related to NASA’s Mars crew exploration.
Nobody is going to Mars
It’s possible.
https://amgreatness.com/2023/02/28/the-population-crash/
The demographics are correct, but blaming it on mimetics and wokeism is bullshit.
–The demographics are correct, but blaming it on mimetics and wokeism is bullshit.–
I am not sure the demographics are correct, and as said before,
not confident any government can even count- based on their general incompetence. And I think the American government did a new thing and tried to count, but not sure they can, nor that any govt can.
Also governments lie. So, got incompetence, and the will to tell the truth and a will to prevent counting anything correctly- due to general and specific evidence relate to power corrupts.
But it’s possible govt can count and possible the demographics are correct.
But in terms solution to this problem [which could be more lethal than global nuclear war] which might not so much of problem, it seem
one should things which also should be done for other reasons.
So it seems young females in US are very unhappy and wokeism seems to making this worse.
Alternatively, alpha males get angrier now that women can go their own way and seek woken soy boys who feel things better.
“alpha males get angrier now that women can go their own way”
I don’t think alpha males are angry unless women gets over 25 year old and don’t want to go their own way.
Good news for the fans of the Trumping boy
” In the United States, the Fox News channel embarrassed by judicial revelations about its editorial practices
Mogul Rupert Murdoch has admitted under oath that several network stars knowingly endorsed the lies about voter fraud put forward by Donald Trump’s camp in 2020. ”
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/02/28/aux-etats-unis-l-affaire-judiciaire-qui-embarrasse-la-chaine-fox-news_6163662_3210.html
They’ll say ‘Fake news’ of course :–)
Scott already talk about that.
I watch Five [sometimes] and Gutfeld! {most of time}.
Rupert Murdoch is just doing an obvious business move-
he only exist because corporate news [and obviously Fox is
corporate “news” also] were idiots.
Fox only has slightly more audience and CNN is so confused and has shot themselves in the foot endlessly.
Of course you know, CNN were the ones who got Trump elected, and about only honest thing they done is to say they got Trump elected {which they did- and apparently, regret it}.
Nobody liked Clinton, and her machine couldn’t drag her corpse across
the finish line.
The old white guy, Biden, who failed endless in previous presidential races, was obviously, more liked.
It wasn’t that Biden was more liked, the Democrats are so pathetic they could find no one better.
Biden was good enough to beat Trump.
Biden didn’t beat Trump. Trump beat Trump.
Did you watch the debates? Trump behaved like some of the idiots here.
I thought Biden hid in his basement.
You thought, gb?
I bet it was just a caffeine spasm.
Is that the same Rupert Murdoch who was forced to close the News of the World rag in the UK? It does not surprise me that he’d throw staff under the bus to save another lawsuit.
binny…”The origin of Russias aggression against Ukraine lies chiefly behind the very clear command of Putin….”
***
Duh!!! Of course it was Putin’s decision but why did he arrive at that decision? The western media portrays the decision as something he formed on a whim while trimming his nails in his hot tub.
Putin told us why he invaded but the western media and politicians are in denial about their absurd involvement in the Ukraine prior to the attack. It was the actions and inactions of the West that led to this war, and now keeping it going.
Some idiots in the West cannot leave well-enough alone. Dr. John Mearsheimer, an expert on US foreign policy, predicted a war in 2015 if we did not stop ‘poking the bear’ as he stated it. Why is it that only a handful of people can see the truth?
History backs Putin’s version. He claimed he was invading in support of Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine who asked him for help and to deal with a Nazi element in the Ukrainian army represented by the Azov battalion. The US Congress had already decided to stop supporting Azov due to their Nazi ideology. Apparently, Biden is unaware of his own government’s policy.
The Russians have done exactly what Putin claimed, they have limited their invasion to the Donbas region and gotten rid of the Azov battalion in Mariupol. So why is the western media still talking about him taking over the entire Ukraine due to expansionism as well as other countries bordering Russia like Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania?
As usual, dumbo Binny is sadly misinformed.
Me, misinformed?
You are known here as a mad, gullible Putin sucker, Robertson.
You always read misinforming blogs and misinform this blog accordingly.
You are such a dumb liar…
binny, once again, has no intelligent response, just that of a mad Teuton.
maguff…”The Herman Cain Award is an ironic award given to people who made public statements of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy, and who have later died from COVID-19 or COVID-19 complications”.
***
There are still idiots out there in denial of the fact that covid was nothing more than bad case of the flu and that well after the vaccines began, 70% of hospitalizations and deaths attributed to covid were people who were fully vaccinated.
Why else would they decide to relegate covid to the rubbish heap after two years, declaring it to be endemic, meaning it is now regarding as a common affliction like the flu? Vaccine passports and the vaccine itself has gone the way of the dodo bird.
There should be an award for people like Maguff who are to obtuse to do the required research.
maguff…”Former Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) attributed his decision to retire to the long-term effects of COVID-19…”
***
No such things as long covid, yet another dumb theory put forward by witch doctors.
Inhofe is 88 years old. People that age are far more likely to succumb to age-related issues than to be longtime sufferers from a virus.
I watched a dear friend go suddenly downhill in his 80s after surgery. It wasn’t the surgery that got him, he had recovered well from it. The problem was ineptitude by a doctor giving him a medication that depressed him and caused other psychological issues. He literally lost the will to live.
If Inhofe believes his current problems are due to an ongoing viral infection, I feel badly for him.
C’mon, Bordon.
If Jim lost the will to live, why did he invent the Inhofe Cheeseburger?
Willard, please stop trolling.
” No such things as long covid, yet another dumb theory put forward by witch doctors. ”
What a pity that this blog’s dumbest ignoramus lives so far away from any covid19 infection source…
But his insults are nothing new. Robertson insults anyone he thinks be wrong, if necessary even Newton’s translator Andrew Motte – as a cheating SOB.
If Robertson had balls he would email the German Health Administration, the Robert Koch Institute, and tell them what he thinks about their long covid experience:
https://www.rki.de/EN/Content/infections/epidemiology/outbreaks/COVID-19/Long-COVID/content-total.html
Koch, himself, was cool, he offered something concrete and scientific. However, modern institutes bearing his name means nothing as far as truth is concerned.
The interesting thing about Koch is the postulates he laid out for identifying a virus or an infectious agent. The current covid viral theory could not meet the rigours of his postulate. A complaint offered by a viral researcher in 1935 was that no virus could meet the requirements of Koch’s Postulate.
The only thing that as changed re Koch since 1935 was the invention of the electron microscope, which enabled scientists to finally see a virus. Guess what, modern viruses since and including HIV, have abandoned the procedure that requires a virus to be identified with an EM. They simply use hocus-pocus and no one calls them on it.
By hocus-pocus, I mean they simply identify a few strands of RNA and proclaim them a virus. That RNA method was developed by Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, ***BECAUSE HE COULD NOT SEE HIV ON AN ELECTRON MICROSCOPE!!!***.
Montagnier never claimed to have discovered HIV, he claimed he INFERRED it. Even after using his new method based on retroviral theory, which was about 10 years old when he allegedly discovered HIV, he later proclaimed that HIV does not cause AIDS and that the immune system will handle HIV if it is healthy. No one listened to him, today we continue to proclaim a virus discovered using his now defunct method.
The simple fact that today, both HIV and covid are largely forgotten, is a testament to the fact neither were ever the danger they were claimed to be. Long covid is yet another long-bs theory.
In Oregon, a state in the US, there is the Linus Pauling Institute, named after one of the greatest scientists of all time. The only thing they have in common with Linus is the name. They lack his insight, his vast experience, and his courage.
Quoting the Robert Koch Institute means nothing to me, just another appeal to authority. Unless you can explain long covid in your own words, it means you don’t understand what it means.
And so the Florida GOP is trying to pass a law that makes the Democratic Party illegal:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/11egt0p/florida_republicans_introduce_a_bill_to_eliminate/
It’d be fun to see how our in-house troglodytes will spin that one.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
If you want to be taken as seriously as the official incumbent as a pseudo-moderator, you should be the first to set a good example by stopping trolling everywhere and at all times.
Ah, a one party state.
Thus, the Florida GOP behaves exactly like
– Putin’s Единая Россия (‘United Russia’)
or like
– Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (‘Justice and Development Party’)
– etc etc (the list is long, isn’t it).
The common goal of all three is to exterminate opposition.
Sounds pretty good.
“Thus, the Florida GOP behaves exactly like…”
***
Florida is one of the only states fighting back against the current neo-Nazi incursion of idiots in Democrat clothing.
Remember, Hitler was voted into the Reichstag in Germany in 1932, although his party did not have a majority. For whatever reason, he was appointed chancellor in early 1933. In the subsequent few years, he was regarded by the West as a good guy. The idiotic Canadian PM got an audience with him and butt-kissed Hitler so well that Hitler, feeling flattered, extended the audience.
By the time anyone got it that he was not what he appeared to be, it was too late. The same sort of nonsense is going on in the US right now, with idiots defunding police, opening the borders to illegal aliens, allowing hardened criminals to be released on bail, men passing themselves off as women, children being brainwashed in schools by LGBTQ freaks, and so on.
Florida is one of the only states resisting this rush to insanity. If we don’t fight back collectively, we deserve what we get.
Here in Canada,it is now being considered a hate crime if you criticize Muslims, even though their practices re women contravene our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When it was revealed recently that Chinese Canadians in our Parliament were being funded by China, the PM, Trudeau, called it racism to point out such matters.
Maybe you feel OK accepting this politically-correct bs, but I don’t.
ps. Fascists don’t need to carry on with the extremes of Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini, they can be far more subtle. They can remove undesirables (to them) subtly using Draconian laws.
Hitler and Stalin had obvious, extreme psychological issues but there are people with borderline psychological issues who are politicians today. For whatever reason, they seem to have gotten together in the current Democratic Party in the US and the Liberal Party in Canada.
This does not seem to be a Left-leaning issue, it stretches across the political spectrum. Recently, in Canada, the Conservative leader slammed a German politician visiting Canada as having ‘vile’ opinion.
I have heard this woman, Christine Anderson, speak, and I see nothing vile in what she is saying. She was the only one in the EU who stood up and denounced Trudeau for his Draconian actions against the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy.
You likely know more about her than me but it seems she is being unfairly judged due to extremists in her party. Then again, I am asking the wrong person to be objective.
C’mon, you got to hand to Bordon.
At least he has an ethos.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Based on the Democrat Party idiocy the past decade and more, I am all for that.
The Democrat Party is the Party of Cherokee Indian relocation, slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, Japanese American internment, Welfare Programs (modern slavery), and urban governments (modern slavery). He might have a point.
Troglodytes will troglodyte:
> The AFC principally supported isolationism for its own sake, and its coalition included many Midwesterners, Republicans, conservatives, socialists, students, and leading industrialists, but it was controversial for the anti-Semitic and pro-fascist views of some of its most prominent speakers, leaders, and members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
The Tea Party invent nothing.
Again, what’s your point?
You’re the one defending fascists, Troglodyte.
Weird Wee Willy,
You don’t support freedom of opinion?
You are one of those complete idiots to whom Winston Churchill referred, when he said “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
You can’t even explain the role of your mythical GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling!
I suppose that’s why you slither around in your slimy way, ineffectually trying to annoy total strangers. I suppose that’s all you have, if nobody takes notice of your opinions.
Poor Little Willy – keep trying.
Wiltard, a typical fascist. He calls others what he is.
So, I make a point by pointing out who the Democrats are and Wiltard responds by calling conservatives, fascists. This is after I have pointed out that historically the left has been and still are the Fascists. You’re brilliant Wiltard.
So I make a point about the GOP in Florida and Troglodyte repeats an old canard about the Dems:
> After Reconstruction, factions of white Republicans did try to force black people out of the Grand Old Party. This so-called lily-white movement would ebb and flow well into the 20th century, when President Herbert Hoover, a Republican supported by the KKK, was quoted saying he wanted to make the Republican Party, quote, “lily-white.”
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/763957341
You’ll need to refresh my memory about what the canard was, specifically.
The EFFECTIVE RADIATING TEMPERATURE is the temperature of a body with a single approximate emission temperature that radiates the same power over its whole spherical surface as it receives as a disk from the sun, based on the albedo-reduced SOLAR FLUX.
–
This emission temperature should not be confused with any NORMAL planet average SURFACE temperature, because the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law cannot be applied to any kind of average surface temperature!
–
The solar FLUX’s ratio of the PLANETs surface area to its cross-sectional area is 4:1.
–
Once again, the EFFECTIVE RADIATING TEMPERATURE is an equivalent uniform surface temperature, based on the SIMPLIFYING ASSUMP-TION that a PLANET radiates like a STAR.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
” … based on the SIMPLIFYING ASSUMPTION that a PLANET radiates like a STAR. ”
*
You do your very best for the second time to make a fool of yourself by unconditionally following pseudo-skeptical narratives without any verification of their actual truth.
The first time was as you followed the nonsense of a few incompetent idiots claiming on this blog without any proof that the lunar spin does not exist, despite this having been computed by several different methods since centuries.
*
Maybe avoid a second failure, go to the following website:
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/
and try to see what the surface radiation REALLY looks like, e.g. this:
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=fpk&date=2023-02-28&p6=upir
or this:
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=dra&date=2023-02-28&p6=upir
*
Σκέψου πριν γράψεις! Μπορεί να είναι μια καλή εμπειρία.
At the moons equator on the sunlit side the temperature is around 120C whereas on the opposite dark side, the temperature is about -230C.
****
Amazing what the BINDIDON’S greenhouse atmosphere can do!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” BINDIDONS greenhouse atmosphere ” ?
It’s not mine, and you know that.
Hopefully you’ll will be better in learning and in thinking than in writing.
That has almost nothing to do with atmosphere, and everything to do with rotation speed.
–
The difference is that Earth rotates 29.5 times faster than Moon, so Moon interacts with 29.5 times as much gross energy per unit area per Lunar day cycle!
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” The difference is that Earth rotates 29.5 times faster than Moon… ”
That’s heresy, Christos!
Did you forget that Moon doesn’t rotate?
Be careful! The lunar spin denial squad is watching you.
Binny,
Which type of rotation are you talking about?
Christos has explained at least two, both, so you can’t even claim that you don’t understand that there are different definitions of rotation of bodies such as the Moon.
Flynnson
You are such an arrogant and ignorant twat.
Vournas perfectly knows that our Moon spins.
If you had a working brain, you would visit his web site and read there all you need, instead of permanently boasting and blathering.
binny advises Christos to “Think before you write! It can be a good experience”.
The biggest idiot on the site needs to take his own advice. Problem is, Binny would have no idea what it means to ‘think before you write’. Binny has no ability to think, he is totally focused on combing the Net for the advice of authority figures.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-ii-evidence-that-homogenization-spuriously-warms-trends/#comment-1452804
Blinny’s authority figure has the initials A.H.
Aaah.
Asshole Anderson can’t stop insulting me with the worst possible.
Anderson is a pervert who calls those bloodthirsty South American dictators ‘leftists’ who killed in the 1970’s tens of thousands of leftists and whose secret police officers were trained by Nazis who fled there after World War II.
I don’t know why a cowardly swine like Anderson keeps calling me a Nazi and associating me with Adolf Hitler. No idea! He is completely mentally ill – in the same way as Hitler was.
Troglodyte knows about daddy issues:
> THE FALLOUT BETWEEN former [teh Donald] and Fox News continued on Tuesday following the release of a deposition from Fox Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch. The deposition stems from a defamation suit brought against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems, which alleges the network knowingly misled the public about claims of fraud in the 2020 election.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-attacks-rupert-murdoch-dominion-lawsuit-1234688322/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wiltard, how is there a fallout when almost every host of every Fox News show, The Five, Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, etc. support Donald Trump? I’ll wait for your answer.
Troglodyte can recognize fascist potential even hidden under layers upon layers of orange tan:
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/are-trump-republicans-fascists/
Let us hope you and your generation of Freedom Fighters will hang their keyboards before it is too late.
Most of energy of sunlight is less than 1/6.
And they use 1/4 because they think that allows for Earth’s spin {and maybe even axis tilt}.
christos…”the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law cannot be applied to any kind of average surface temperature!”
***
Good point.
Also, the T^4 relationship should make it obvious that the relationship between surface temperature and emission is not linear. The T^4 relation applies only at temperatures between about 500C and 1500C, that’s where the proportionality constant applies, not below 500C.
If someone wants to find the relationship between a surface near 15C and the amount of radiation emitted, one has to find a way to measure the infrared emission at that temperature. Stefan obviously had no interest in that when he did his calculations.
The reason Stefan was able to find the T^4 relationship between 500C and 1500C was due to the fact the electrically-heated filament wire used by Tyndall in his experiment actually glowed in colours that could be associated to colour frequencies, hence a colour temperature. The T^4 relationship is a comparison of colour temperatures not temperatures measured by a thermometer.
Even at that, Stefan derived the relationship before Planck’s equation was produced. I would guess that means the colour temperature relationship was not that accurate. It doesn’t make sense to me that the relationship between temperature and emission intensity is exactly T^4 and not T^3.5 or whatever.
I mean, who works at temperatures between 500C and 1500C to verify the relationship?
It is well-known that radiation intensity is not nearly the same at 15 C as it is in the range between 500C and 1500C. Radiation at 15C is relatively insignificant whereas at 1500C it is significant. Proof of that is the fact that residential houses had no provisions re insulation to block heat loss from radiation until very recently.
T^4
This might help.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
The maths is above my pay grade but you shouldn’t have any trouble.
“The StefanBoltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. ”
The StefanBoltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature in the vacuum of space.
An ideal thermally conductive blackbody at 1 AU distance from our
sun, would have uniform surface temperature of about 5 C.
What is not known is if covered it with transparent “dome” or an actually greenhouse- the glass or other transparent material, it have
a higher temperature, it couldn’t have a temperature below 5 C, but
it could have a higher daytime temperature.
Or the ideal thermally conductive blackbody remains at uniform surface temperature of about 5 C, but the transparent material could
be about 120 C during the day.
Or Earth at 1 AU distance has an average uniform temperature of about 3.5 C. The average temperature of the ocean. And it has a greenhouse
effect. Well it has two greenhouse effects- the transparent ocean and the transparent sky.
More than 80% is sunlight reaching Earth passes thru the transparent ocean surface. And reflected sunlight or indirect or any diffused sunlight passes thru the transparent ocean surface- and longwave IR
doesn’t.
And the ocean being about 70% of Earth surface and having average surface temperature more than the 30% of land surface, controls the average temperature of the atmosphere.
Whereas the land areas cool quicker and heat up quicker and warmer global air temperature is less cooled at night and inhibits land ground temperature from cooling to a lower temperature.
Or higher global air cause the morning to have warmer air temperature
and starting the day with warmer air, allows land to warm air and land ground surface to higher temperature. The ground can heat to more than 60 C and surface air temperature can can get hotter than 40 C- if gets enough sunlight and the night was warmer, as compared to ocean surface temperature rarely reaching 30 C and doesn’t have much difference of temperature of day and night.
But Earth can have higher average ocean temperature than 3.5 C, it can have average ocean temperature of 10 C or more.
When Earth has average temperature of 10 C or more, Earth global climate is called a greenhouse global climate.
And when the average ocean temperature is 5 C [or as cold as 3.5 C]
Earth climate is called an icehouse global climate.
We are in an Ice Age or also called an icehouse global climate.
gbaikie says: “The Stefan Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature in the vacuum of space.”
No, it describes the power radiated from the surface. Period. The surface might also be absorbing radiation, but that is a separate calculation.
“What is not known is …”
This is an easy calculation for idealized, radiation-only heat transfers.
“Or the ideal thermally conductive blackbody remains at uniform surface temperature of about 5 C, but the transparent material could be about 120 C during the day.”
No, that would be quite impossible.
1) If the dome material was perfectly transparent for both visible and IR, then it would have no impact. The dome would end up somewhere between -270 C and 5 C. The surface would stay 5 C.
2) if the dome was transparent to visible, but opaque to IR, then all the IR would have to come from the dome. The dome would need to be 5 C to radiate enough power to space. The surface would be warmer than 5 C so that it could radiate to the 5 C dome. (Around 59 C bases on idealized conditions)/
https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/courses/astr1120_03/text/chapter1/SBLaw.htm
“No, that would be quite impossible.
1) If the dome material was perfectly transparent for both visible and IR, then it would have no impact. ”
IR is quite a large spectrum.
And nothing is perfectly transparent to visible or IR.
But your typical glass or plexiglass is fairly transparent to visible [the thinner and flatter/smoother the better], and isn’t with Longwave IR.
Only one meter of air is fairly transparent to IR and almost perfectly transparent to visible light. Though can’t say the same with 10 tons of atmospheric air per square meter- it scatters, reflects, and diffuses, the direct sunlight.
Noon, clear sky, sun at zenith gets about 1050 watts of direct sunlight at sea level plus has 70 watts of indirect sunlight giving a total of 1120 watts per square meter of sunlight of the 1360 watts of direct sunlight from the sun {TOA}.
gbaikie, I was just going with your scenario that already started with an ‘ideal’ thermal conductor that also an ideal black body. So naturally I went with ‘ideal’ transparent materials.
Of course, we could go layer after layer more complex (air, partially transparent, not your ideal thermal conductor, etc). But within the spirit of your scenario, my answer was appropriate. The ‘transparent dome’ simply will not get to 120 C above a 5 C.
Also, your link conformed exactly what I said. The original SB Law is about radiation out, independent of the surroundings. There is a modified SB Law for the net transfer that includes the surroundings.
ent…T^4 doesn’t help. You claim to have a degree in biology, how about trying to apply the science you learned rather than resorting to smart-assed replies? I expect that from Wee Willy but you have a scientific education.
Take a look at your link and find the graphic that lays out a T^4 curve vs radiation power. Note the need to use huge number to make it fit on a normal x-y plot. It shows the curve being essentially flat till 2000K because in order to realize the T^4 relationship the graduations on the y-scale are in the order of 10^8 units.
However that flatness is deceiving due to the scale. If you look at the x-axis between 0K and 2000K, it appears to be essentially flat. If I use two values in their, 300K and 2000K I get for 300K about 460 w/m^2 being emitted. For 2000K I get about 880 kilowatts/m^2. That’s a huge difference in ALLEGED radiation power.
I’m calling Stefan on this and all the other scientists who automatically accepted this nonsense without taking a closer look at the meaning.
What does 460 watts/m^2 mean? A watt is a measure of mechanical power related equivalent to a horsepower, which is a measure of how much weight can be lifted per unit time. Because there is an equivalence between heat and work we can form an equivalence between heat in calories and joules in mechanical work. That does not mean they are equal quantities, only equivalent quantities.
Neither heat nor work have an inverse-square relationship wrt distance as does electromagnetic radiation. The instant radiation leaves a surface, it begins to dissipate as the square of the distance from the surface.
A surface at 300K, which is about 27C, is said to be radiating about 445 w/m^2 of EM. If I reduce the area to the size of a finger tip, say 1 cm^2, over concrete at 300C with an emissivity of 0.91, S-B tells me it is radiating 0.0418 W over that centimetre squared.
That will be true only as long as I hold my finger as close as possible to the concrete without touching it. The moment I pull my finger back a metre, the effect is negligible.
Note that I am ignoring the heating effect of the air molecules which have been heated by the concrete directly. They very likely account for th entire heating effect at 300K.
Sorry, but the S-B equation has far too many questions that need to be answered. The main question for me is how EM can be measured using a measure that applies only to mechanical energy and to heat only as an equivalent energy.
C’mon, Bordon.
460 watts/m^2 means there’s 460 watts per meter square hitting and leaving the Earth.
An equilibrium.
Like your mind states, but in reverse.
Wayward Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“460 watts/m^2 means theres 460 watts per meter square hitting and leaving the Earth.
An equilibrium.”
You dimwit – the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years!
More energy out than in!
Amazing or what?
Idiotic SkyDragon cultist – try accepting reality.
Mike Flynn,
What are you blathering about?
I expect chemical engineers to understand energy balance models.
Are you really dumb or are you just incompetent?
Hard to tell.
Wayward Wee Willy,
You wrote
“460 watts/m^2 means theres 460 watts per meter square hitting and leaving the Earth.
An equilibrium.”
You dimwit the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years!
More energy out than in!
Amazing or what?
Idiotic SkyDragon cultist try accepting reality.
Hey, Mike –
https://youtu.be/JHYIGy1dyd8
Another stratospheric intrusion on the West Coast of North America.
https://i.ibb.co/mtwnpYW/gfs-o3mr-300-NA-f120.png
ren…Environment Canada predicted the intrusion would last 2 days last week on the Feb 22nd and 23rd. Here we are a week later with no end in site.
EC cannot predict the weather a week ahead yet they claim a special insight into climate 20 to 50 years from now.
Global sea ice extent update
1. In absolute form
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17Wc-b_OZhrzorLsE_ZibKU82F1w1U-_g/view
2. In anomaly form wrt the daily means of 1981-2010
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnrnCfQjICj21o1gOeFMbMI1xsF0nZoj/view
Yawn!!!
Bordon,
Do you have a point?
I moved this down here in response to Binny but it might interest others re the cause of the Ukrainian war. It’s written by Dr. Johm Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. He is an expert on US foreign policy, yet another one of the ‘cranks’ Binny claims I consult.
https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/03/11/john-mearsheimer-on-why-the-west-is-principally-responsible-for-the-ukrainian-crisis
C’mon, Bordon:
> I don’t want to say Mearsheimer is an idiot. He’s obviously not. He is (or was) a successful political scientist. So either he’s winging it or doesn’t really give a shit. But there’s no excuse for an interview this dumb and error-filled.
https://twitter.com/shadihamid/status/1499750948104716291
Mearsheimer is an idiot.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Of course you could list all the dumb things (whatever that means), and all the factual errors, and support your assertions with fact, couldn’t you?
Only joking – dumb and erroneous SkyDragon cultist abhor facts, don’t they? Vigorous hand waving is their preferred method of exercise.
Maybe you could name someone who values your dumb and ignorant opinions, but I doubt it.
Feel free to try to prove me wrong, fool.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Clock on the link.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Of course you could list all the dumb things (whatever that means), and all the factual errors, and support your assertions with fact, couldnt you?
Only joking dumb and erroneous SkyDragon cultist abhor facts, dont they? Vigorous hand waving is their preferred method of exercise.
Maybe you could name someone who values your dumb and ignorant opinions, but I doubt it.
Feel free to try to prove me wrong, fool.
Mike Flynn,
Clock on this:
https://youtu.be/o-YBDTqX_ZU
Or not.
Nobody cares either way.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Of course you could list all the dumb things (whatever that means), and all the factual errors, and support your assertions with fact, couldnt you?
Only joking dumb and erroneous SkyDragon cultist abhor facts, dont they? Vigorous hand waving is their preferred method of exercise.
Maybe you could name someone who values your dumb and ignorant opinions, but I doubt it.
Feel free to try to prove me wrong, fool.
Good boy.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Of course you could list all the dumb things (whatever that means), and all the factual errors, and support your assertions with fact, couldnt you?
Only joking dumb and erroneous SkyDragon cultist abhor facts, dont they? Vigorous hand waving is their preferred method of exercise.
Maybe you could name someone who values your dumb and ignorant opinions, but I doubt it.
Feel free to try to prove me wrong, fool.
Good boy –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Copy-paste your comment again.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Of course you could list all the dumb things (whatever that means), and all the factual errors, and support your assertions with fact, couldnt you?
Only joking dumb and erroneous SkyDragon cultist abhor facts, dont they? Vigorous hand waving is their preferred method of exercise.
Maybe you could name someone who values your dumb and ignorant opinions, but I doubt it.
Feel free to try to prove me wrong, fool.
Good boy
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Copy-paste your comment again.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Another troll is repeating their gibberish over and over again, in the vain hope it will somehow be transformed it into a Pearl of Wisdom?
FYI: it doesnt work.
Does Putin pay by the word?
Or is there a monthly retainer?
andrea….”Does Putin pay by the word?”
***
Is it possible for you to respond to a post, offering your rebuttal to points that confuse you? Or are you living in a tent city somewhere stealing power and wifi to enable your incessant babbling on this site?
BTW…is Andrea a male name or a female name? If I was a male and had been branded with such a name, I’d have dumped it years ago. It’s like ‘A Boy Named Sue’, by Johnny Cash.
Or like Willard.
Mearsheimer: Rigor or Reaction?
What John J. Mearsheimer gets wrong about Ukraine, international affairs, and much else besides.
https://quillette.com/2023/02/15/mearsheimer-rigor-or-reaction/
Mearsheimer is more interested in advocating for his theory than he is in understanding or truth telling.
Your author admits that Mearscheimr is a realist, as if there is something wrong with being realistic. But the real problem with your author’s criticism is in this statement…
“…the ouster of the kleptocratic Moscow-backed former Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych (which preceded the annexation of Crimea);”
Duh!!! Yankovich was a democratically-elected president and he was ousted in a coup by armed Ukrainian nationalists.
Wake up, Andre, since when it is OK to remove a sitting president in a Democracy by force? That’s what is conveniently over-looked by the idiot writing your article, he doesn’t give a damn that the president was removed illegally by armed nationalists.
Your author has no argument: he admits Mearsheimer is an expert on foreign policy, and that he is a realist. The author has no real argument.
If that’s what you support, no more needs to be said. You simply don’t remove a president because you don’t like him preferring to deal with Russia than the EU.
Come on, Bordon.
Mearsheimer brags about being a realist just about everywhere he goes.
On his website, you can see a painting of him dressed like Machiavelli.
He followed the tradition of writing sloppy ideas void of real empirical content. Besides:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800065.pdf
If you really believed that scoundrel, you would act more like Pup.
You only are interested in him because he happens to be a contrarian.
Failure to appreciate how the internal characteristics of regimes can alter their behavior explains Mearsheimer’s confusion about the war in Ukraine.
He finds it necessary to misrepresent the historical record to make his case.
There is no confusion in Mearsheimers argument, the confusion is in your mind regarding the reality of the situation in the Ukraine. You have bought into the argument of bs-artists in the western media. They are lying and you are too naive to do your own research.
Mearsheimer puts little weight on Putin’s substantive essay negating Ukraine’s sovereignty and pushing Russian nationalism. Nor does Mearsheimer take seriously Putin’s statement lamenting the fall of the Soviet Union as a tragedy, nor Putin’s imperialistic vision.
Mearsheimer’s amoralist framework treats Putin as if he were something other than a freedom-destroying thug. He views with neutral indifference a dictator’s lust for domination over victims (both in Ukraine and in Russia) who desire to be left alone.
Even though many Ukrainians are risking their lives fighting off Russia’s invasion; even though they dread a future under Putin’s authoritarian boot; even though many Ukrainians want to reshape their country so it better protects their freedom; none of that counts for much in Mearsheimers analysis.
To dispense with moral judgment in international relations – as in any area of life – is to normalize and enable monsters.
andrea…”Mearsheimers amoralist framework treats Putin as if he were something other than a freedom-destroying thug. He views with neutral indifference a dictators lust for domination over victims (both in Ukraine and in Russia) who desire to be left alone”.
***
You are so damned naive. You have no idea what has being going on the Ukraine. Of course they want to be left alone, to continue their form of fascism under the guise of democracy.
Do you have the least bit of understanding of the situation in the Ukraine? Watch the movie by Oliver Stone called ‘Ukraine on Fire’. It was made in 2016 long before the current war developed. Watch it then do your own research on it. I spent hours verifying what is claimed in the video and the hours of research revealed a Ukraine that is seriously corrupt. They are rated the most corrupt nation in Europe.
Do you have any idea what the war is about? It began as a civil war in 2014 following the ouster of Yanucovich. The people of eastern Ukraine, who are largely of Russian ethnicity, voted in favour of Yanucovich. When he was ousted illegally they became a might upset.
What would you do if the leader of your country was ousted by armed militants? Come on, man, open your eyes. They revolted and a civil war began in 2014.
Come on, Bordon.
You really are in no position to speak of naivity.
Oliver Stone is a deranged man with a camera:
https://www.newsweek.com/stephen-colbert-oliver-stone-putin-624893
Imagine if we really believed that to feel insulted was good enough to act like a thug.
Recall the number of ZZ invasions since the 90s.
Come on, recall them.
Thank you Andrea Weinberg for your sound contributions.
I lack the time today to give a proper, well balanced reaction to John J. Mearsheimer’s 2014 paper
Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault
The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
and will read it tomorrow, it’s now a bit late at 1 AM at GMT+1.
But my reaction will anyway go in a direction very similar to yours, especially wrt the right of sovereignty for all states around Russia, especially those which heavily suffered under the USSR dictature.
binny…”I lack the time today to give a proper, well balanced reaction to John J. Mearsheimers 2014 paper…”
***
You lack far more than the time.
AW,
Excellent work deconstructing Gordon Robertson’s appeal to authority.
wee willy…”So either hes winging it or doesnt really give a shit”.
***
Or, maybe he’s telling the truth. Based on independent verification of what he has said, I’d say it is 99.9999999999999% likely he is telling the truth. It’s easy to verify ww, why not give it a try?
C’mon, Bordon.
Maybe you have better odds with your HIV denial.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Still heavy frost in the Midwest.
Western circulation completely blocked in the Atlantic. Europe remains in northern air mass.
https://i.ibb.co/9hRthtd/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-02-091303.png
In a few days d Europe will receive air from as far away as the North Pole.
https://i.ibb.co/4K4Rpcq/hgt300.webp
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
AUSTIN (KXAN) The risk of severe thunderstorms continues to increase as the Storm Prediction Center has an Enhanced risk for much of Lampasas, northeast Burnet, northern Williamson and much of Milam Counties.
https://www.kxan.com/weather/weather-blog/thunderstorm-potential-for-central-texas-coming-thursday-afternoon/
Wee Willy Wanker,
Your explanation of the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling would be preferable to just repeating what everyone already knows.
Do you think quoting a journalists weather source makes you look wise and important?
Mike Flynn,
Clock on this:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Or not.
Who cares!
Cheers.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Your explanation of the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling would be preferable to just repeating what everyone already knows.
Do you think quoting a journalists weather source makes you look wise and important?
Mike Flynn,
The Storm Prediction Center is not “a journalists.”
Could you try being less of a flaming galah?
Cheers.
Wily Wee Willy,
Not journalists? Oh dear – must be fortune tellers. Weather is unpredictable, no matter who claims otherwise.
All beside the point – quoting forecasts about unpredictable weather by “experts” of any sort, doesn’t make you any wiser.
Explaining the role of the “greenhouse effect” in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling – well, that might indicate something about your intellect.
Keep trying to avoid reality – you can run, but you can’t hide!
Fool.
Mike Flynn,
You play dumb –
“Not journalists?”
No, not journalist.
Reading the comment to which you respond would have saved you a blunder.
Or would it?
Wily Wee Willy,
Not journalists? Oh dear must be fortune tellers. Weather is unpredictable, no matter who claims otherwise.
All beside the point quoting forecasts about unpredictable weather by experts of any sort, doesnt make you any wiser.
Explaining the role of the greenhouse effect in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling well, that might indicate something about your intellect.
Keep trying to avoid reality you can run, but you cant hide!
Fool.
Hey, Mike –
Do you think spamming makes you spend your sabbatical wisely?
In fact, do you think?
Should we care?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Singapore, 1 March 2023 The prevailing Northeast Monsoon conditions are expected to continue into the first fortnight of March 2023, with the low-level winds blowing from the northwest or northeast.
http://www.weather.gov.sg/fwo-wettest-day-on-record-for-february/
Wee Willy Wanker,
Your explanation of the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling would be preferable to just repeating what everyone already knows.
Do you think quoting a Government weather forecast makes you look wise and important?
Mike Flynn,
Get better material:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Your explanation of the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling would be preferable to just repeating what everyone already knows.
Do you think quoting a Government weather forecast makes you look wise and important?
By the way, why do you bother posting a link that you are too embarrassed to describe? Posting it more than thirty times might be a hint that you are wasting your time.
Carry on trying, donkey.
Mike Flynn,
The Sky Dragon crank demands spoon-feeding again?
It’s all you deserve:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Blundering bludger!
Wee Willy Wanker,
Your explanation of the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling would be preferable to just repeating what everyone already knows.
Do you think quoting a Government weather forecast makes you look wise and important?
By the way, why do you bother posting a link that you are too embarrassed to describe? Posting it more than thirty times might be a hint that you are wasting your time.
Carry on trying, donkey.
Mike Flynn,
The Sky Dragon crank demands spoon-feeding again?
It’s all you deserve:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
The “Government weather forecast” was a nice touch.
Too bad you misplaced it.
Blundering bludger!
Wee Willy Wanker,
Your explanation of the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling would be preferable to just repeating what everyone already knows.
Do you think quoting a Government weather forecast makes you look wise and important?
By the way, why do you bother posting a link that you are too embarrassed to describe? Posting it more than thirty times might be a hint that you are wasting your time.
Carry on trying, donkey.
The Sky Dragon crank demands spoon-feeding again?
Here you go:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Long live and prosper.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Your explanation of the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling would be preferable to just repeating what everyone already knows.
Do you think quoting a Government weather forecast makes you look wise and important?
By the way, why do you bother posting a link that you are too embarrassed to describe? Posting it more than thirty times might be a hint that you are wasting your time.
Carry on trying, donkey.
Mike Flynn,
The Sky Dragon crank demands spoon-feeding again?
Its all you deserve:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Silly Billy.
Mike Flynn,
The Sky Dragon crank demands spoon-feeding again?
Its all you deserve:
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Silly Billy.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Your explanation of the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling would be preferable to just repeating what everyone already knows.
Do you think quoting a Government weather forecast makes you look wise and important?
By the way, why do you bother posting a link that you are too embarrassed to describe? Posting it more than thirty times might be a hint that you are wasting your time.
Carry on trying, donkey – it looks like I’m not the only person who can’t be bothered clicking on something you have already posted, what, 36 times?
It must mean something of great value to you – or you are insane, repeating the same action over and over, hoping for a different outcome (apologies to A Einstein).
[laughing at strangely deluded SkyDragon cultist]
Mike Flynn,
https://youtu.be/ATwZxpRvLUs
Phosphenes.
wee willy…”Mearsheimer is an idiot”.
***
We have established who the idiot is wee willy, and it’s not Mearsheimer. You have proved yourself to be a babbling idiot over and over, so no one expected your approval of Mearsheimer.
C’mon, Bordon.
Everybody knows that Mearsheimer is an idiot, e.g.:
https://twitter.com/shadihamid/status/1499750948104716291
And I say this as a fellow realist.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote – “While Russia was invading Ukraine and leveling its cities, John Mearsheimer actually said that Putin has “never shown any evidence that hes interested in conquering Ukraine.””
And that makes somebody reporting fact, an idiot because . . . ”
Maybe you could provide some factual evidence that President Putin has stated that he is interested in “conquering” Ukraine. Unsupported assertions by assorted US, UK, and other “experts” are not factual evidence of anything much.
Your opinions are based on fantasy and wishful thinking, it seems.
Just like your delusional SkDragon cultist claims that a GHE (which you conveniently cannot describe) is suddenly heating the planet, after failing to do so for four and a half billion years!
You really are a gullible donkey, aren’t you? Do you really uncritically accept obvious propaganda? Whether Russia will succeed in achieving its stated aims is unknown – the future being involved. Whatever will be, will be.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“You wrote”
No, I didn’t!
Please stop making a fool of yourself if you can.
Swoon.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote While Russia was invading Ukraine and leveling its cities, John Mearsheimer actually said that Putin has never shown any evidence that hes interested in conquering Ukraine.
And that makes somebody reporting fact, an idiot because . . .
Maybe you could provide some factual evidence that President Putin has stated that he is interested in conquering Ukraine. Unsupported assertions by assorted US, UK, and other experts are not factual evidence of anything much.
Your opinions are based on fantasy and wishful thinking, it seems.
Just like your delusional SkDragon cultist claims that a GHE (which you conveniently cannot describe) is suddenly heating the planet, after failing to do so for four and a half billion years!
You really are a gullible donkey, arent you? Do you really uncritically accept obvious propaganda? Whether Russia will succeed in achieving its stated aims is unknown the future being involved. Whatever will be, will be.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
a lot of baloney, I suppose.
Hard to tell, for I skipped it.
Try again, I might read it.
Who knows?
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote While Russia was invading Ukraine and leveling its cities, John Mearsheimer actually said that Putin has never shown any evidence that hes interested in conquering Ukraine.
And that makes somebody reporting fact, an idiot because . . .
Maybe you could provide some factual evidence that President Putin has stated that he is interested in conquering Ukraine. Unsupported assertions by assorted US, UK, and other experts are not factual evidence of anything much.
Your opinions are based on fantasy and wishful thinking, it seems.
Just like your delusional SkDragon cultist claims that a GHE (which you conveniently cannot describe) is suddenly heating the planet, after failing to do so for four and a half billion years!
You really are a gullible donkey, arent you? Do you really uncritically accept obvious propaganda? Whether Russia will succeed in achieving its stated aims is unknown the future being involved. Whatever will be, will be.
Good boy.
Again!
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy w…”Mearsheimer actually said that Putin has never shown any evidence that hes interested in conquering Ukraine…”
***
Where is the evidence of which you speak? Show me one piece of reality that indicates Putin has any intention of ‘conquering’ the Ukraine. He has stated his goal, to free the provinces in the Donbas region so they can vote for their future. Shoe me any evidence that he has done more than that?
Come on, Bordon.
Read the tweet again –
While the ZZs.
Were invading Ukraine.
And leveling its cities.
Besides, Vlad wrote about it,e.g.:
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-new-ukraine-essay-reflects-imperial-ambitions/
In all my Climateball career, you are the lousiest crank I have ever met.
Well played!
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Maybe you could try reading what the Russian President wrote, rather than an opinion penned by an American journalist.
Others might, and some would no doubt smile wryly at your misguided “appeal to authority”.
Facts are facts. Opinions are opinions, and I suppose that out of eight billion people on Earth, at least some might value your opinion. Other delusional SkyDragons, those poor souls afflicted with impaired mental functions, and similar unfortunate specimens, probably.
How are you getting on explaining the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? Have you tried appealing to authority?
Give it a try.
Mike Flynn,
Maybe you should clock on links one day.
That would help you look like a daft Sky Dragon crank.
Daft Sky Dragon crank.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Maybe you could try reading what the Russian President wrote, rather than an opinion penned by an American journalist.
Others might, and some would no doubt smile wryly at your misguided appeal to authority.
Facts are facts. Opinions are opinions, and I suppose that out of eight billion people on Earth, at least some might value your opinion. Other delusional SkyDragons, those poor souls afflicted with impaired mental functions, and similar unfortunate specimens, probably.
How are you getting on explaining the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? Have you tried appealing to authority?
Give it a try.
Mike Flynn,
Maybe you don’t have anything to say.
Crapulence.
Moon-dust shield could help fight climate change on Earth
By Sharmila Kuthunur
published about 6 hours ago
The proposed solution isn’t perfect but could help buy us some time, researchers say.
https://www.space.com/moon-dust-shield-earth-fight-climate-change
“The team concluded that launching moon dust at about 1.9 to 3 miles per second (3 to 5 km per second) toward L1 would be the most promising strategy, shading Earth for the equivalent of up to a week every year.”
So, 3 to 5 km/sec is 6696 mph [or 10800 km per hour] to 11,160 mph [18,000 km per hour].
Earth has two L-1, Earth/Sun and Earth/Moon L-1, but I doesn’t make much sense for it to be Earth/moon L-1. But it could be Earth/Moon L-1 or L-2 or L-4/5 or 3. But probably meant Earth/Sun L-1.
From Lunar surface to any Earth/Moon L-1 thru 5 is about 2.5 km/sec which is 5580 mph [or 9000 km per hour] but if wanted to go instead
Earth/Sun L-1 it’s about .1 km/sec more which is about 232 mph {360 km or hour} more.
Earth/Moon L-4 point is about 60 degree [of a 360 degree- though L-3 180 degrees or 1/2 the orbital path and 360 degrees get back to Moon- though at 300 degrees you at L-5 point]. And Lunar orbital path is 2,415,254 km or L-3 point is 1/6th of that distance from Moon or 402,542 from center of the Moon.
But area of L-3 could be about 400,000 km which centered on the point or said differently, 200,000 km either way of that point. Or if went about 600,000 further ahead of the path the Moon is taking- when go about 200,000 km you enter the zone, 400,000 you approaching the point and at 600,000 from Moon you leaving the zone. And if slow down, you fall towards Earth and if speed up you get further from Earth. And you can go up and down [or change the inclination relative to the Moon’s inclination of it’s path around the Earth.
Now say fly past the L-3 point at relative velocity of .01 km or 10 m/s [22.3 mph}.
To travel 100,000 km at 10 m/s requires 10,000,000 seconds [2777.77 hours, or 115.7 days}. Moon has diameter of about 3475 km.
What if made a cloud 100 times bigger, 347,500 km and have it centered at L-3. Or radius of 173750 km which has volume of:
2.210^16 cubic km. And say had 10,000 dust particle per cubic km
Or 2.2 x 10^20 dust particles.
Could you see thru it? “100 μg per cubic meter ” and “The Saharan dust storm is part of a regular meteorological … PM10 is 10 to 20 micrograms per cubic meter of air, mostly due to sea salt”…
“parts of the Caribbean reported particle concentrations above 400 micrograms per cubic meter”. 10 micrograms per cubic meter is 10 billion micrograms per cubic km or 10,000 kg. And you see thru 1 km of it, though doubtful 10 km or 100 km of it, but not 1000 or 100,000
km of it. So we somewhere between 1 ton per cubic km or my much smaller number of “10,000 dust particle per cubic km”
So this block the sun once per month 3 or 4 days per month. But it seems might form a ring and constantly block the Sunlight.
The Whistleblower
Julie Hartman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVgNMf2HhzU
Actually not as bad as I imagined.
Cool interview
“Part of the excitement of boundary-layer meteorology is the challenge in studying and understanding turbulent flow – one
of the unsolved problems of classical physics.”
But I am sure there are those who think that this problem is already solved.
“…there are those who think that this problem is already solved.”
Give us names. Inquiring minds want to know.
“When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? An why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first.” Werner Heisenberg
Heisenberg was over-rated and an idiot.
Gordon,
In relation to fluid dynamics, Richard Feynman at least, agreed with him.
He said “there is a physical problem that is common to many fields, that is very old, and that has not been solved. It is not the problem of finding new fundamental particles, but something left over from a long time agoover a hundred years. Nobody in physics has really been able to analyze it mathematically satisfactorily in spite of its importance to the sister sciences. It is the analysis of circulating or turbulent fluids.”
Feynman was convinced that he could solve this problem, using his problem solving method. “Write down the question, think about it long enough, then write down the answer.”
Unfortunately, after giving the problem a lot of intense thought for about four years, Feynman decided the problem was beyond him. In relation to weather (and climate). He said “However, the theory of meteorology has never been satisfactorily worked out by the physicist. [] Quickly we leave the subject of weather, and discuss geology!”
Turbulence – chaos.
Even the IPCC accepts that it is not possible to predict future climate states, although SkyDragon cultists like Bindidon and others are firmly convinced that “experts” can predict the future by sufficiently “dissecting” the past!
As far as Heisenberg is concerned, his uncertainty principle is certainly confirmed by the most rigorous experiments performed by people who are firmly convinced that “God does not play at dice.” Good enough for me.
Still no GHE – just the strident assertions of cultist who can’t even describe their wondrous “greenhouse effect”, whilst running around waving placards demanding that others “Stop Climate Change!”.
Oh well.
swenson…re Heisenberg…you know me by now. When I call someone an ijit, I’m having a bad hair day.
His uncertainty principle is obvious. The problem I have with H. and others in his era in the mid-1920s, is how they loaded quantum theory with theories that were more absurd than useful. We are no further ahead with these theories than we would be without. Quantum theory is still an ambiguous theory that makes little or no sense.
Feynman agreed. He said “I think I can say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics.”
Scientists in those days, mainly theoretical physicists, were working in the dark trying to throw out theories to see what might stick. As a result we are left with electron orbital theory based on Bohr’s original framework of quantum energy levels. It’s a serious mess because as Feynman intimated, no one can prove electrons behave that way in an atom.
Meantime, Feynman was playing bongo drums in Brazilian samba bands.
I recall a story about Feynman that illustrated how his mind worked. One day at university he was looking out a dorm window when he noticed an ant walking across the window sill. He waited to see if the ant would come back, and sure enough it did, following the same trail. After a few to and fros by the ant, he got the idea to erase the track with a pencil eraser, and when the ant returned, it stopped at the point where he’d erased the trail.
Who else would have ad the curiosity to do that?
Excellent point, Richard. It figured a twinky like maguff would be along to challenge your point with some inane comment. Perhaps maguff could elaborate on turbulent flow.
RLH,
I thought (hoped) you were perhaps initiating a conversation on recent advances in the study of turbulent flows. It seems not, pity.
The study of turbulence is a multidisciplinary activity that has received a lot of attention since Reynolds first published his experiments in 1883.
In my area of Petroleum Engineering laminar flow is the exception, rather than the rule.
I’m not aware of anyone solving the closure problem in the formulation of turbulent flow problems. Until then, it’s empiricism and brute force computing all the way down.
Here is a quote from O. Reynolds from ca. 1884:
“To mechanical progress there is apparently no end: for as in the past so in the future, each step in any direction will remove limits and bring in past barriers which have till then blocked the way in other directions; and so what for the time may appear to be a visible or practical limit will turn out to be but a bend in the road.”
maguff…”In my area of Petroleum Engineering laminar flow is the exception, rather than the rule”.
***
You are not seriously trying to compare the flow of oil to the flow of gases in the atmosphere and how they interact with the sun, land and ocean, are you?
The claim that we can’t understand anything about climate change because of turbulence is hyperbole.
Its all about what one wants to know.
We put a pot of water on a stove and heat it.
If you want to accurately predict the temperature at every point in the water as a function of time, that will be more difficult because of turbulence.
If you want to predict the average T of the water as a function of time that will not be prevented by turbulence.
nate…predicting the temperature in a pot of heating water will be more difficult??? Because of turbulence??? You certainly are a master of the understatement.
Nate,
You start with a molten blob called Earth. After four and a half billion years of cooling, the surface is no longer molten.
What has that, or a pot of water, got to do with the fact that the dynamics of the atmosphere, lithosphere, the mantle, the core, the aquasphere, are chaotic in nature, and therefore unpredictable in any useful sense.
You can’t even describe the GHE. let alone describe its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling. As a delusional SkyDragon acolyte, you might be best sticking to irrelevant diversions such as stoves and pots, overcoats, buckets with holes, or claims of Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt being “climate scientists”!
No GHE. The Earth has cooled. If you want to believe that the same physical laws which caused the cooling are now causing heating – good for you. You are perfectly free to believe any fantasy you choose.
Good luck.
Still playing dumb, Mike Flynn?
Here:
https://youtu.be/ATwZxpRvLUs
Macaroon.
Weird Wee Willy,
Still besotted with irrelevant and nonsensical links? Tut, tut. You really are a slow delusional SkyDragon, aren’t you? If your links contained anything to support your nonsensical cult beliefs, you would no doubt wave it around proudly, for all to see!
But of course, they don’t.
So keep posting nonsensical links, and I’ll continue not following them.
Your nitwittery is diverting, in the sense I derive a deal of amusement from your bizarre attempts to get me to waste my time.
Keep it up – maybe people will forget you can’t even describe the “greenhouse effect”, let alone explain its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.
You’re not a macaroon – you’re a moron.
Mike Flynn,
How do you know it’s an irrelevant link if you don’t clock on it?
You don’t. Here it is again –
https://youtu.be/ATwZxpRvLUs
Collywobbles.
Nate: Turbulent flow has an undefined time element. Taking ‘averages’ of short time segments is just as unpredictable as anything else. What time series do you think is appropriate, given that ocean gyres can take 100s of years to complete?
Years and years ago I was publishing how GISS adjustments for temperature trend steps where stations were moved outward from urban centres – contributed to cementing UHI warming into the resultant “homogenized trend –
How many times does a truth have to be told ? UHI warming has been cemented into global temperature series by adjusting for steps outward from cities 31Jan 2014
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=2678
There are links to earlier blogs on the subject.
wh…you might be interested in this video interview of Ross McKitrick….
…posted by Eben…
https://youtu.be/1-mFnG-i7Fg
It is generally accepted in the field of fluid dynamics that turbulence is a complex, chaotic flow behavior that can arise in a fluid flow when certain conditions are met, such as high velocities or the presence of obstacles.
Turbulence is not a property of the fluid itself, but rather a property of the flow. This is because the same fluid can exhibit laminar flow or turbulent flow depending on the specific conditions of the flow. In other words, it is the flow of the fluid, rather than the fluid itself, that determines whether or not turbulence occurs.
It is worth noting, however, that certain fluid properties, such as viscosity and density, can influence the onset and behavior of turbulence. For example, fluids with higher viscosity tend to exhibit more laminar flow, while fluids with lower viscosity are more prone to turbulence. Additionally, changes in the temperature or pressure of a fluid can affect its flow behavior and potentially lead to turbulence.
maguff…”Turbulence is not a property of the fluid itself, but rather a property of the flow”.
***
So, if there is no fluid there, you will still have turbulence? Simply amazing!!! Wish I’d known that.
Allow me to clarify. If the atoms/molecules making up the fluid are not affected by someforce, and the interaction with themselves, then there must be a mysterious, magical phenomenon, maybe space-time, or a black hole, causing the turbulence.
Hmmm…I need time to ponder this amazing development.
Last tag!!!
“So, lets assume that value at zero growth in Fig. 5 represents what we should expect for the NON-urbanization related adjustments to GHCN trends. As we move to the right from zero urbanization growth in Fig. 5, stations with increasing growth in urbanization should have downward adjustments in their temperature trends, but instead we see, for all classes of growth in urbanization, UPWARD adjustments instead! ”
They’ve been doing this forever! The entire temperature record is an utter fabrication.
Excellent post