Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2023 was +0.93 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is slightly above the September, 2023 anomaly of +0.90 deg. C, and establishes a new monthly high temperature anomaly record since satellite temperature monitoring began in December, 1978.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 22 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.07 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.12 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.49 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.28 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.23 | +0.74 | +0.03 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.27 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.25 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.18 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.60 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.47 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.84 | +0.56 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.32 | +0.24 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.51 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.25 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.05 | +0.16 | +0.94 | +0.04 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.13 | -0.16 | -0.51 | +0.51 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.03 | -0.35 | -0.21 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.14 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.09 | +0.17 | 0.00 | -0.11 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.16 | -0.13 | -1.44 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.25 | -0.03 | -0.38 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.39 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.06 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.87 | +0.53 | +0.91 | +1.44 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.70 | +0.88 | +0.51 | +0.86 | +0.94 | +1.54 | +1.25 |
| 2023 | Sep | +0.90 | +0.94 | +0.86 | +0.93 | +0.40 | +1.13 | +1.17 |
| 2023 | Oct | +0.93 | +1.02 | +0.83 | +1.00 | +0.99 | +0.92 | +0.62 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for October, 2023 and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
Lower troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Middle troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower stratosphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
I was expecting a drop – instead we break the record again.
Only need an average of +0.17 over the next two months to equal the warmest year.
Decadal anomalies:
1980s -0.28
1990s -0.14
2000s -0.03
2010s +0.12
2020s +0.27
.
.
.
July-October anomalies:
2023 0.79
2020 0.35
2017 0.34
1998 0.32
2019 0.32
2022 0.30
2016 0.29
2021 0.26
2010 0.16
2015 0.13
.
.
.
2008 -0.21
1981 -0.28
1989 -0.28
1979 -0.30
1993 -0.32
1984 -0.42
1986 -0.42
1982 -0.51
1992 -0.52
1985 -0.54
West of the Galapagos Island is HOT again.
Its a little hard to believe that Australia is up 4.5o since June.
How is a rise from +0.06 to +0.62 equal to a rise of 4.5?
I’m surprised by this. Had expected this to be a record October, but with the anomaly below that of last month.
This beats the previous October record (2017) by 0.46C, and marks the 4th month in a row to set a record for that month.
The top 10 warmest Octobers in the UAH data set are now:
1 2023 0.93
2 2017 0.47
3 2020 0.38
4 2021 0.37
5 2022 0.32
6 2019 0.30
7 2015 0.28
8 2016 0.28
9 1998 0.24
10 2003 0.12
The top eight have all been since 2015.
The so called pause hangs on, now starting in October 2015, but there are only four starting months where any negative trend can be seen. Meanwhile the trend since January 2018 is +0.34C / decade. Not meaningful, but still a longer period of time than Monckton’s original 5 year pause.
As far as my simplistic statistical prediction. Having started the year as saying there was effectively zero chance of 2023 being the warmest, it is now claiming an 86% chance of it being the warmest, with a forecast for the year of 0.41 +/- 0.04.
I expect the odds should be much higher as my method doesn’t take into account the change over the year.
I think this is a record anomaly for the Northern Hemisphere, and both the NH and Tropics smashed the record for October.
This should destroy the argument that the only reason for the global records is the high anomalies in the Antarctic.
Hey Bellman,
California has solved the problemno more gas-powered small engines. I think the Truckers and Farmers will be next on their list. It will be amusing to watch California for the next few years.
Don’t think anyone said the Antarctic changes were the only reason. You now have a solar maximum fast approaching, El Nino and multiple effects from the Hunga-Tonga eruption.
Indeed RLH’s assertion there has been no warming since 2016 is looking increasingly shaky.
At least he will have a new bench mark to use in the future to declare no warming from.
I made no such statement.
Why haven’t you hit us with your graphs recently? You know – the ones based on your crazy filter which “showed” we’d be getting colder by now?
I put my ‘claims’ (actually basic filters such as Roy does) out as soon as the data is updated. I only missed one month because I was holidaying in France.
So where are this months graphs?
I’m not sure about the claim of no warming since 2016, but it was only 2 years ago that you said the 13m average would drop to -0.3 C before it rises.
And it’s not just you. There were countless predictions on this blog and others claiming that the top was in and that it was only going to cool from here on out. Some of these predictions, astonishingly, were as recent as July 2023 literally one month before a new monthly record was recorded.
Are you going to claim that the recent rises are to do with CO2?
Coolistas are doing a lot of goal post moving these days.
So do you claim that CO2 caused the recent rises?
bdgwx says:
”Im not sure about the claim of no warming since 2016, but it was only 2 years ago that you said the 13m average would drop to -0.3 C before it rises.
And its not just you. There were countless predictions on this blog and others claiming that the top was in and that it was only going to cool from here on out. Some of these predictions, astonishingly, were as recent as July 2023 literally one month before a new monthly record was recorded.”
Big deal. We have heard countless predictions from both sides of this issue for nearly 50 years. And so far basically nothing has happened that we would write home about.
RLH, CO2 is a contributing factor to the global average temperature at all time scales. But that does not mean that it is a primary factor in the changes at all time scales. It is the primary factor in the long term trend only. It is not a primary factor in the short term timing or magnitude of the trough to peak change of the most recent spike.
bdgwx says:
But that does not mean that it is a primary factor in the changes at all time scales. It is the primary factor in the long term trend only. It is not a primary factor in the short term timing or magnitude of the trough to peak change of the most recent spike.
—————-
how can you say that without fully attributing the mechanisms of the short term changes that dwarfs decades of alleged co2 effects that likewise have not been even partially attributed?
RLH,
“Are you going to claim that the recent rises are to do with CO2?”
Why are you deflecting from the point you are replying to – that skeptics on this blog had predicted only cooling recently and since 2016?
Is it so hard to face that these predictions fell foul of the last few months? Do you really need to point somewhere else to avoid answering?
Some predictions I am aware of:
RLH: “The average temperatures of the past 10 years (to Dec 2021) will be warmer than the next 10 years.”
RLH only has to wait 8 years.
Bill Hunter: Bets that it will be warmer for “the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2015 vs the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2025.”
Bill has 26 months left.
Scott R (September 2015): “I’d be happy to publically post my forecast of -0.2 on UAH within 5 years right here on this blog.”
Scott has 14 months left.
Thanks barry. I’ve added those predictions to my list. I’ve got quite a few from the WUWT site as well. Most of the predictions have already gone down in flames.
Well I generally don’t bet.
But the only pattern I saw was the 3 to 4 decadal Pacific Decadal Oscillation that provided such a pattern through out the last 150 years. That ocean current pattern appears to be slightly showing itself but in a weaker state than usual. North Pacific waters have been over the past several years have been living up to its name in being quite tame. A name earned when Europeans first spied the ocean off the Central American coast. And of course the climate models can’t replicate this climate pattern as nobody knows its causes. . . .which is a huge problem regarding claims that natural warming isn’t a significant or the only part of what we have seen in recent decades. Knowing they exist provides some basis of expectation it will show itself again in the not too distant future.
Well for the record the prediction was the slope of the temperature trend not an average. And I declined to put money on it. But its clear I didn’t figure on a HTE/ENSO massive shift in trend this year which definitely puts me in a pickle.
Actually my prediction isn’t on the ropes yet. The warming slope for the 2006-2015 decade was .15c/decade
The current slope for almost the first 8 years is 0.0c/decade (Monckton pause?)
I have some room but this event is unprecedented with the mean global temperature rising .97C in 9 months. The previous record was 1997 to Jan 1998 where it rose .73C in 9 months. This was 33% higher for a 9 month change in temperature.
I don’t need a record recovery but the margin is getting scary close.
You are trying to change the terms of the bet. Why not just stick to what was originally agreed upon?
There is no change in terms. Go to the link from last January that Barry provided above. I said what the terms were during the discussion of the bet that it was on a lower temperature trend than what had occurred from 2005 to 2015.
Fact is the trend was .15 for that decade which is about what the overall trend has been. But the overall UAH trend is below theory by a good deal hitting right on the lowest estimate of 1.5degrees per century. Theory says 3.0 degrees, which is as far off as zero warming. But cooling? With a recent solar grand maximum and a 1,500 year ocean adjustment time? Nadir of the LIA was only 323 years ago.
barry said: Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021. Do you have a nearer term prediction?
Bill Hunter said: Ill take that bet for the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2015 vs the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2025.
The bet is in regards to the temperature (C).
The trend (C/decade) is completely different thing. At no point was the terms of the bet in regards to the trend.
Bdgwx I told you to read the whole thread. The discussion is a bit imprecise but the Barry’s conclusion to not take the bet in the last thread entry states what he declined to bet on. . . .which still wasn’t exactly what I was saying but was close enough there was no further need to correct him.
Last entry of the thread:
———-
barry says:
Bill,
I couldnt quite make out what you thought you were betting on. On a warmer year than 2016 occurring during the current decade to 2025?
2 years left to beat a record set 6 years ago in 2016, which broke the record set 18 years prior?
Dont fancy the odds.
————-
bottom line is I think warming is waning not necessarily stopping.
I have stated that multiple times over the years in this forum.
So why would I bet on cooling? I have said I am on board with Dr. Akasofu’s take on a LIA recovery that we should all expect to be there to some extent and potentially having a warming influence for another 1000 years or more if not overridden by some unpredictable event or some unpredictable cycle seen in the variation of the ice core data.
I have been perfectly consistent with that view since I started posting in here.
So I offered a slower cooling rate while complying with Barry’s request for something not so far into the future. Barry declined saying the odds were not to his liking.
You were the one who originally took the bet and then backed out after Barry calculated what it would take for you to win.
Incorrect bdgwx. I never intended to bet money, simply a gentleman’s bet. That is clear in the thread as I had no confidence in getting paid if I won, plus I am not a gambler also stated in the thread. But I never backed off the prediction.
You were wrong on what my prediction was and so was Barry and of course Nate had to ignorantly chime in as he usually does.
Once Barry understood that I wasn’t betting on cooling occurring he decided he didn’t like the odds.
That was the at the end of the thread.
So exactly where do you get the idea I wasn’t willing to make a prediction? Seems you are all over the place like a soup sandwich trying to hold me to one?
And lets be clear on my position which strawman builder’s everywhere try to twist words to make it sound like my thoughts on the matter changes weekly.
I initially ascribed to Dr. Akasofu’s take on the matter back some 15 years ago when he first started posting stuff the matter that eventually ended up in a paper sometime around 2009.
He detailed a continuing LIA recovery. I was also observing the increase in solar activity at the end of the 20th century that some call a solar grand maximum following the LIA minimum continuing the prospects of warming for another couple centuries possibly as sea ice and glacial ice continued to provide positive warming feedbacks.
So no! I don’t expect cooling to occur though recognize that ocean oscillations, ENSO phase dominance, volcanic activity, and some historical events I forget name of that causes sudden deep surface cooling are all a possibility but I have no reason to think any of these kinds of events are predictable.
My only contribution to that the bet that fizzled was to quote Barry and Bill,
Barry “Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021. Do you have a nearer term prediction?
Bill “Ill take that bet for the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2015 vs the 10 years ending Dec 31, 2025.”
And note that:
“The meaning was quite clear when you made the bet, Bill.”
It only makes a difference to you Nate. Barry declined the bet once the terms were negotiated. Offering a bet isn’t the same as taking or making a bet.
If I wasn’t explicit enough in the first sentence explaining it maybe you need to take some English classes to be able comprehend the subsequent sentences. Seems there is an awful lot around here you get wrong.
If the bet wasn’t finalized then we can hardly hold you accountable.
Will you consider entering into a bet here and now? The bet would be the 10 year average UAH TLT from 2021-2030 is warmer than 2011-2020. I’ll take the YES position and you take the NO position. Should UAH discontinue their dataset I propose falling back on STAR, ERA, and BEST in that order. Payout is $100 to the charity of the winner’s chosing. Are you agreeable to those terms?
bdgwx says:
”If the bet wasnt finalized then we can hardly hold you accountable.
Will you consider entering into a bet here and now? The bet would be the 10 year average UAH TLT from 2021-2030 is warmer than 2011-2020.”
The problem with that bet bdgwx is I clearly stated above that I think warming will likely continue for maybe another hundred years based upon the temperature variations seen in ice core data and the end of the LIA. I recognize that temperature variation varies in amplitude from maybe 1 to 4C with 4c variations only periodically occurring and that this is high latitude temperatures that are being proxied and that the period of these variations are multi-centennial.
So why would I take that bet? What I am looking for is a waning of warming rates. Last January I went over that with Barry and he didn’t like the terms despite his climate disruptor showing no signs of waning. . . .maybe he was fearful of governments having success in cutting emissions in the rest of the world.
what happened, Bill, was that you quoted the bet, misunderstood it, and when you tried to describe what you were betting on, were unclear. You said ‘trend’ and ‘highest year’ in different replies. Both were short-term bets, nothing to do with AGW, but with weather variation, so I opted out, still wondering what bet you were actually making.
I bet on AGW, not weather. You declined to make a long-term bet owing to your age.
Barry I responded to your request to RLH:
”Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021. Do you have a nearer term prediction?”
January 2023 to 2031 is weather too (only 8 to 9 years) as it isn’t at least 2 decades.
What you decided not to bet on because you weren’t getting a bet on the complete cessation of warming.
So it wasn’t weather but instead you thought it didn’t give you enough margin. In fact you pointed out that you didn’t like that 2016 had been the warmest year for 18 years indicating you had no confidence of faster warming.
I figured you might since warming has already been proceeding at a far slower pace that predicted back after that 1998 event and I was going to lay it on the line that it would continue to warm slower and slower. But I have to admit at this moment your side of the bet looks a lot more attractive showing that one never knows what kind of natural event might intervene and change something. Typically 10 years is more than sufficient to get another El Nino and the question is do you think the unrealized warming between the 1.4/decade and 3.0/decade is lurking there ready to pop out at any moment?
The bet was for two decades – averages of two consecutive ten year periods, one warmer than the other.
That was abundantly clear.
Whatever bet you were offering wasn’t clear. Either you were betting on a short-term trend line, which is subject to the vagaries of interannual variation (ie, weather), or you were betting that some year in the next couple would/would not be warmer than 2016 (ie, weather).
Whichever it was, you weren’t making a bet on global climate.
Barry you didn’t want a climate bet saying a bet until 2031 was too far out when it was only 9 years or so and you wanted a shorter term one.
Complete fabrication, Bill.
As in, you totally made that up.
You rejected the bet to 2031, not me.
Bill Hunter: “I would consider your original bet but think its kind of silly to bet on something 10 years out. Thats beyond my life expectancy per professional actuaries.”
It seems you’re prepared to make a bet the trend in global warming is lessening/will lessen.
Unfortunately, that would take even longer to determine with statistical significance. Worse, you think you can do it by comparing the trends of two consecutive decades.
You need far less data to determine a trend (in global temperature) than you do to determine a change in the rate of that trend.
i agree.
the corollary to that thought that its nigh impossible to know how much its warming. just the differences in opinions between the various services tells us that.
barry says:
Complete fabrication, Bill.
As in, you totally made that up.
You rejected the bet to 2031, not me.
———————–
you are confused barry.
this was the post after which i came in. you were responding to rlh.
barry says:
January 11, 2023 at 4:16 AM
”Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021. Do you have a nearer term prediction?”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427867
so you first rejected that bet. you didn’t offer it to me but i told you why i wouldn’t take it if you did.
Nonsense Bill. Are you unable to understand plain English?
“I’ve got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021.”
That’s an already established bet. “I’ve got you down” means that I have marked the bet. And you can see me accepting that bet when it was first made here.
I was also perfectly willing to accept the same bet from you, but with the decade ending in 2025, compared with the previous decadal average ending in 2015. You can see that transaction here.
But then you said there had been a misunderstanding, and regarding the original bet to 2031 you said, “I would consider your original bet but think its kind of silly to bet on something 10 years out. That’s beyond my life expectancy per professional actuaries.”
You rejected the bet to 2031, not me.
And I am perfectly happy to take you on for either the bet to 2025, or the bet to 2031, based on the original premise of the second decadal average being warmer than the first.
Will you take it up or reject it again? I’m not interested in betting on weather, only global climate change.
barry says:
Nonsense Bill. Are you unable to understand plain English?
Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021.
———————
You are the one full of nonsense Barry. I hadn’t even entered the thread when you posted that. You were calling RLH out on his prediction. I never made that prediction. I just saw an opportunity of taking a baseline ending in an El Nino. You wanted to bet money and didn’t. You didn’t say anything about money re: RLH’s prediction but you asked RLH ”Do you have a nearer term prediction?” So I responded with one. After discussing the specifics the thread ended with you saying: ”Don’t Fancy the odds” which I took as you not wanting to make a non-monetary bet indicating to me with 7 years in with a cooling trend you saw some distance to go be a warmer decade with 7 years cooling in the books and a need to override that in 3 years.
barry says:
Nonsense Bill. Are you unable to understand plain English?
Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021.
———————
You are the one full of nonsense Barry.
I hadn’t even entered the thread when you posted that. You were calling RLH out on his prediction. I never made that prediction.
I offered 2005-2015 versus 2015-2025. You were all for it and wanted to bet money. I didn’t. We talked some and you noticed that it had been cooling 2015-2022 so 7 years of cooling was already baked in. The thread ended with you saying: ”Don’t Fancy the odds” . . .suggesting you wanted my side.
You’re really losing the thread of the conversation, Bill.
I quote your post from just above:
“Ive got you down predicting that the 10 years to 2031 will be cooler than the 10 years to 2021. Do you have a nearer term prediction?”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427867
so you first rejected that bet.
You are quoting me here, and then claiming I rejected that bet.
I didn’t. “I’ve got you down,” means I accepted the bet. From RLH. I even linked to my conversation with him about that.
So you’re really mixed up if you think I believe that quote was to you. I was speaking to RLH. If you had clicked on the link, you would have seen the conversation I had with him about it.
So NO, I did not reject that bet, either from him or from you.
You are just wrong about that.
YOU rejected the bet to 2031. I’ve quoted you on it. above.
“I would consider your original bet but think its kind of silly to bet on something 10 years out. Thats beyond my life expectancy per professional actuaries.”
Are we clear yet?
Have a read of what you wrote just now, Bill.
“After discussing the specifics the thread ended with you saying: “Don’t Fancy the odds” which I took as you not wanting to make a non-monetary bet indicating to me with 7 years in with a cooling trend you saw some distance to go be a warmer decade with 7 years cooling in the books and a need to override that in 3 years.”
This is as incomprehensible as your original change to the bet.
Whatever you were trying to bet on, it was to do with short-term effects – essentially weather. And no, I do not bet on weather, as I told you.
I am still open to you taking a bet on the decadal averages. But I take it from you ignoring the offer that you don’t want to bet on that.
If we are betting on climate, I’ll bet money. That’s how confident I am that two successive decadal averages will see the second one warmer than the prior. You can pick any 20 year period you like, with the end year no earlier than 2023, and I’ll lay any money on it.
From 1960 onwards, every bidecadal period has the second decade warmer than the first.
Surely if CO2 has no impact, and the solar contribution has waned over the same period, we should be seeing a decade in the near future being colder than the previous. How weird that this is not the case!
But because I accept that greenhouse warming is real, and because we are not mitigating it significantly, I expect every decade henceforth to be warmer than the last, barring some major volcanic super-eruption or a massive meteor strike that throws up an enormous volume of dust that persists for a few years.
IOW, I expect to see the same phenomenon with global temps we have seen for the last 50 years continue into the future as long as we keep emitting.
I just can’t get a skeptic who disagrees to put their money where their mouth is. Despite all the predictions of cooling we’ve had, no one here really believes it.
Barry you are truly a POS.
You didn’t have me down for anything you had RLH.
the thread ended with you saying: ”Bill, I couldnt quite make out what you thought you were betting on. On a warmer year than 2016 occurring during the current decade to 2025?
2 years left to beat a record set 6 years ago in 2016, which broke the record set 18 years prior?
Dont fancy the odds.”
It as clear as black and white you liked my side of the bet.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/uah-global-temperature-update-2022-was-the-7th-warmest-of-44-year-satellite-record/#comment-1427479
“You didn’t have me down for anything you had RLH.”
Yes, that’s what I said. The bet was with RLH. I linked to it in my post above. I also made that clear again just two posts ago. Thus:
“I’ve got you down,” means I accepted the bet. From RLH. I even linked to my conversation with him about that.
Do you have dyslexia? You are seriously confused.
You and I never made a bet. I’ve said that all down the thread – that you rejected the bet. Why you think I’ve said you did make a bet, God only knows.
I’ve made an offer to move forward and make a wager. I take it from your ignoring it that you’re not interested in betting on global climate change. Ok. Neither are any of the AGW ‘skeptics’. Those predicting global cooling don’t actually have any faith in that forecast.
” … there has been no warming since 2016… ”
Of course you did, Blindsley H00d.
That was either in 2021 or in 2022.
You were even brazen enough to demonstrate that ‘fact’ by using in WoodForTrees exactly those linear trends you persistently denigrate anywhere else, like e.g.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:2016/to:2022/plot/uah6/from:2016/to:2022/trend
Search for all your posts since Janunary 2021, Blindsley H00d.
I won’t do that ugly job for you.
So do you claim that CO2 caused the recent rises?
of course they do. Arguments from ignorance is OK for the academic community because they don’t believe they have any ignorance.
1. Blindsley H00d
” So do you claim that CO2 caused the recent rises? ”
Where the heck did I mention CO2, Blindsley H00d?
Has CO2 recently become your latest hobby horse that you ride like Don Quixote de la Mancha against the windmills of Global Warming?
It seems that your recent holiday didn’t help you in avoiding to post your endless insinuations.
*
2. Hunter boy
” … of course they do. Arguments from ignorance is OK for the academic community because they dont believe they have any ignorance. ”
As one of my former university professors told me decades ago:
” Who is unable to scientifically contradict soon will start to polemically discredit. ”
It’s a shame that this man can’t retrospectively see how incredibly right he was when he could have looked at posts like yours, which are 100% based on own ignorance, gut feeling and the constant urging to discredit, denigrate and… lie.
*
3. But what’s most amazing and amusing is that two people here share in discrediting almost everything I write, but lack a common view of elementary science like the rotation of the Moon around its polar axis.
Blindsley H00d admits the fact, but the Hunter boy 100% denies it!
Ha ha ha haaa! That’s really full funny, isn’t it?
Bindidon says:
”2. Hunter boy
” of course they do. Arguments from ignorance is OK for the academic community because they dont believe they have any ignorance. ”
As one of my former university professors told me decades ago:
” Who is unable to scientifically contradict soon will start to polemically discredit. ”
Its a shame that this man cant retrospectively see how incredibly right he was when he could have looked at posts like yours, which are 100% based on own ignorance, gut feeling and the constant urging to discredit, denigrate and lie.
———————
As usual all you are doing is blowing smoke. Dr Syun Akasofu made the observation that one cannot understand anthropogenic warming without understanding natural warming. Arguing for anthropogenic warming without that understanding is precisely arguments from ignorance as I said. Its not denigration its just a fact that you have so much trouble wrapping your mind around.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bindidon says:
3. But whats most amazing and amusing is that two people here share in discrediting almost everything I write, but lack a common view of elementary science like the rotation of the Moon around its polar axis.
———————-
Well answer the question I asked and we can discuss that.
As I pointed out here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/new-paper-submission-urban-heat-island-effects-in-u-s-summer-temperatures-1880-2015/#comment-1552071
Spinners and Non-spinners agree a rock sitting on the surface of earth is rotating around the central axis of the earth. But lift that rock off the surface of the planet (as is believed to be the origin of the moon) and spinners believe that rotation magically (since they have no explanation for it) is transferred to a rotation around the center of the rock plus an orbit comprised of nothing but linear momentum.
You could fix the magical part with an explanation if you have the guts to try to provide one. But I kind of think you will instead just continue blowing smoke.
Blindsley H00d admits the fact, but the Hunter boy 100% denies it!
Ha ha ha haaa! Thats really full funny, isnt it?
I see that nobody wants to acknowledge their failed predictions. They continue to try to change the subject, move the goal posts, etc.
So ‘it will cool in the next decade’ becomes:
‘if it should to happen to keep warming, it won’t be because of CO2’
isnt it 5 months now?
Anyone got the trend for the whole series?
It’s stated in the description.
Yes. My bad.
“Any other predictions for October?”
I was expecting +0.80C +/- 0.05. +0.93C is bunkers.
The Sun is close to its 11 year maximum.
An El Nino is starting.
The stratosphere still has an extra 10% water vapour from the underwater volcano but the Sun blocking particulates have now dissipated.
Perhaps we will have to wait for the 2030s for some cooling.
(The Grand Solar Minimum).
Sounds like moving goalposts to me. But let’s wait until the 2030s and see whether we will then observe cooling, or if it’s only going to be more warming as the science predicts.
I say the future is always uncertain.
Walter R. Hogle says:
I say the future is always uncertain.
_________________________________________
Not really.
-Warming will go on
-and denying will goe on.
Thats certain.
Natural warming goes on for thousands of years so what is so unprecedented about that?
Among other things, the speed of it.
The speed of it compared to what Willard? Be specific.
0.14C per decade
Doesnt sound very alarming to me.
Why should anyone care about what you find alarming or not, Walter?
Geological times tend to work at a very different scale.
Do you think that is alarming?
The 11-year solar cycle has NO effect on climate. In fact I found a very slight NEGATIVE correlation between sunspot counts and global temperatures.
Which data source or peer-reviewed paper are you quoting re that 10%?
I get a slight correlation between TSI and UAH TLT. My ML model hones in on a 0.06 * anomaly(TSI) effect. The range of the TSI anomalies is from about -1 to +1 W/m2 so that contributes about -0.06 to +0.06 C to UAH TLT. The long term is zero, but there is a small non-zero contribution to the variation in UAH TLT. I’m using NRLTSI2 and TSIS1 datasets from the link below.
https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data
But what is r?
Very low and negative actually. R = -0.04. The inverse correlation is due to the fact that UAH TLT increased while TSI decreased.
However, when we remove the contributions from CO2, ENSO, and volcanic effects from UAH the correlation with the residual jumps up to R = 0.23.
Well TSI may not be the correct variable. Water is a strange substance and evaporation is affected by more than just heat. We have the UN Environmental Program claiming savings of a 1/2 degree warming by reversing the ozone depletion, again without any blueprint of how that occurs.
UV has been established boosting evaporation, which makes sense because of its high frequency warming capability. A great deal of the modern warming occurred from 1980 to 2000 when ozone depletion underwent its greatest decline resulting in a record size ozone hole in 2000. During the past couple of months that ozone hole appeared to have reached a new record size. Is anybody investigating this?
All the heat from the forest fires had to have some effect.
Sam Shicks
” All the heat from the forest fires had to have some effect. ”
Are you sure?
Look for example back to end of 2019 – begin of 2020, as South East Australia was heavily affected by huge fires.
These fires were so intense and persistent that the smoke and haze they produced traveled across the southeastern Pacific down to Chile.
But more importantly, smoke and haze were carried very high, up into the low stratosphere, all over the southern latitude bands.
Look at e.g.
Persistent Stratospheric Warming Due to 20192020 Australian Wildfire Smoke
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021GL092609
*
Such stratospheric warming induced by huge amounts of smoke and dust usually cool the lower troposphere, like do volcanic eruptions.
This can actually have a much higher effect than the heat dissipated around the fires.
Maybe Roy Spencer reminds all that; write a mail to him!
Another month and another record. Odds are now favorable that the Monckton pause will come to an end by December if not next month. November only needs to come in at 0.44 to end the pause.
The 13m centered average is now 0.38 and just shy of the 0.39 peaks in 2016 and 2020. If November comes in at 0.58 or higher then 13m record will be broken as well.
And finally it is looking likely that I’m going to have to eat my words. Earlier this year I said an annual mean record was unlikely. This has now flipped an it is looking more likely than not that a new annual record will be achieved in 2023. November and December need to average just 0.20 C for 2023 to end at 0.40 C breaking the 0.39 C record from 2016.
“…it is looking likely that I’m going to have to eat my words.”
Looks like Lord M has given up on his ‘pause’, or its latest iteration at any rate. He hasn’t posted about it at WUWT for a few months. Think he saw the writing on the wall.
I bet he would have been salivating at the thought of a New New Pause beginning in September, if only October had been a fraction cooler
Thankfully it will go quiet on that front for a while
The new pause likely began before September already. That is the thing with pauses. The beginning months of the new pause usually overlap a bit with the ending months of the previous pause. You just have to be patient and wait for the Monckton method to verify it. We have explained this to Monckton and his advocates on multiple occasions. I suspect the real reason why Monckton went AWOL is because the new pause falsifies the hypothesis that the existence of pauses necessarily mean no more warming will occur, because it undermines his prediction from 2013 that the planet would cool by 0.5 C, and because it provides further evidence that the long term trend predicted by the IPCC in 1990 (which Monckton misrepresents) is still intact.
I bet your wrong, and the global temperature levels will return to the 2015 baseline. I wouldn’t even rule out the 2002 baseline. The abrupt spike in global temperatures is unprecedented. The sources of this heat are not fully understood, and it’s challenging to accept overly simplified explanations. For a period of about 17 years, there was a relative slowdown in global warming following a prior 17-year period of faster warming. This complexity in the data makes it difficult to definitively attribute causes and effects. It’s unwise to make absolute claims or dismiss other hypotheses about the climate’s behavior over the past half-century.
Walter, When do you expect this happen?
Following up with a prediction of any sort after emphasizing the complexity of the climate is contradictory and unwise.
You already made a prediction; two of them actually. 1) You said the global temperature levels will return to the 2015 baseline. 2) You predicted that I would be wrong about the starting point of the new pause being before September. I just want to know when you expect your predictions to be verified.
Walter R. Hogle says:
”Following up with a prediction of any sort after emphasizing the complexity of the climate is contradictory and unwise.”
Yes indeed! Fact is the popular CO2 based climate models do a terrible job especially in the second half of the industrial era.
you can’t defend them and it seems the main argument for them is comprised of making fun of even more inaccurate predictions.
My statement is grounded in the observation of the current conditions at the North Pole. Currently, there are no extraordinary occurrences taking place in that region. Although there was a spike in temperatures in August, it seems to have partly subsided and remains considerably lower than the significant El Nio event that occurred in 2015. These sporadic temperature spikes are not uncommon, and historical data reveals that there have been numerous instances in the past with anomalies greater than the one observed in October. In fact, October 2003 experienced slightly warmer temperatures compared to October 2023 up there.
https://imgur.com/brYV5o5
> I bet your wrong
How much, and with what odds?
Walter, I’m not talking about the average temperature from 60N-90N. I’m talking about the global average temperature as depicted in the graphic Dr. Spencer created for this blog post.
Willard,
I say 85% chance he’s wrong. I’d be down to put some money on that.
You can put your money where your mouth is at Kalshi. The 2024 global temperature market is open.
https://kalshi.com/markets/gtemp/global-average-temp#gtemp-24
Since when is the Global Climate driven by the North Pole whose surface is a small part of the Hemisphere around it?
Global Climate is driven by the Tropics.
My point regarding the spike is the absence of Arctic amplification, which is what we would expect to observe if this were related to CO2.
Thanks, Walter.
bdgwx, I will make a prediction. The pause starting in ~2015/16 will reappear in ~2-3 years, maybe less. The pause starting in 1997/98 will reappear in a decade or so.
Thank you, Edim. I’ve saved your prediction. Be sure to return here at the end of 2025 and 2026.
Edim, Same. I’ve bookmarked your prediction too now. Come back in 3 years so that we can assess it. In the meantime would you mind telling us how this will happen with the Earth energy imbalance at record highs?
Walter, Arctic amplification is a hypothesis of all warming regardless of cause. Nevermind that UAH shows twice as much warming in that region vs the tropics.
Upon doing further research, I was wrong and the temperatures at the North Pole aren’t very helpful. However, it is still a fact that changes in the long term trend prominently manifest themselves in the Arctic. That happened with the three large El Ninos we’ve witnessed.
Barry or anyone else interested in bets,
I collect Climateball bets in that post:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/06/03/beliefs-and-bets
If you know of anyone else, please let me know in the comments to that post.
Thanks!
Willard, are you looking for bets or any prediction?
Mostly bets, but if you need to put publish a list of predictions somewhere handy, I could create a post on contrarian predictions. Tony does it, we should do it too.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abl8278
The 36m and 12m Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) from CERES holds steady at +1.5 W/m2 and +2.0 W/m2 respectively. Since EEI is proportional to the radiative forcing (RF) minus the radiative response (RR) we would normally expect EEI to drop as the planet warms to increase the RR even if RF does not increase. Yet here we are with records in both EEI and temperature. This is a very good indication that not only is the high 13m centered average of 0.38 C not a fluke, but it is likely to increase further from here breaking the previous record and continuing higher in the long run with the overall warming trend possibly even accelerating.
bdgwx, the “RR”, “RF”, and “EEI” are all cult beliefs. CO2 does NOT result in such nonsense.
It’s like claiming this warming is caused by space aliens and unicorns. It’s all mythology, possibly drug-induced.
This warming is clearly due to the El Niño combined with the remnants of the HTE.
grammie clone thinks he can ignore science, as usual.
Yes, the El Nio may be the main cause of the above average temperatures, but the underlying trend is upwards. Don’t forget that El Nio’s tend to peak in December of January. FYI, that’s where the name “El Nio” came from.
It’s spelled “El Niño”, child.
Learn how to comment if you’re going to tr0ll. Otherwise, people will realize how uneducated you are….
Having no reply of substance, grammie clone complains about the fact that my cut and past from his comment didn’t work.
If you want substance, stop being a child and grow up.
Tr0lling ain’t science.
(THAT is some substance for you.)
I’ll wait for you to make the same comment next time Gordon and ren do the same thing.
grammie clone finally posts something I can agree with, writing:
He should know, since he’s one of the most prolific tr0lls around here. Lots of unproven assertions and other noise that lack substance.
Quoting me is always a good way to learn, child.
Here’s some more substance for you: False accusations ain’t science either.
grammie clone, up thread, you wrote:
That’s just another example of your many assertions without proof or support. Pointing out that fact is not a “false accusation”.
Wrong child. I’ve explained why the EEI is nonsense several times. I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you. You have to be an adult.
First grow up so you can face reality. Then we can discuss science.
EEI has no doubt been out of balance 99.999999% of the time through both recorded and unrecorded history.
Why?
Well we know that the oceans eventually absorb something like 90% of solar energy hitting the earth’s surface and the temperature of the oceans absorb large portions of this energy below the mixing zone of the ocean. The mean time of full mixing in the mixing zone can take years. . . best guesses being 7 to 10 years as the mean time between major storms stirring up the ocean to the depth of maximum swell sizes.
thus since oceans comprises well over 2/3rds of the earths surface and the response temperature is potentially off by 2 degrees we really have no idea whatsoever where EEI currently sits.
You’re shooting bullseyes here, Wild Bill.
grammie clone wrote another condescending comment, ending with:
I thought I was pretty smart when I graduated from engineering school on the Deans List with membership in two honor societies. Then I went to graduate school at university where everybody else had great creds and then things really got tough as I got my MS in three quarters while winning an engineering design contest. Then I went to work and tool additional courses. I didn’t make it thru to the PhD level for several reasons, including my loss of motivation.
Sorry, clown, I think YOU are the one who needs to GROW UP.
Well Swanson, that certainly explains why you can’t think for yourself.
And maybe that’s why you’ve never matured past the junior high school level.
But, try to follow me and try to understand my comments. Ask responsible questions if necessary.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
So sez the dude who consistently argues that correlation = causation!
The only correlation we have, with millions of years of data, is that CO2 follows temperature in both long and short time scales.
“CO2 follows temperature in both long and short time scales.”
Except on those occasions when temperature follows CO2.
Entropic man says:
CO2 follows temperature in both long and short time scales.
Except on those occasions when temperature follows CO2.
—————————-
yep like when temperature follows your birthday.
and of course co2 following temperature is well established science of a dissolved gas in a liquid being directly proportional to its partial pressure.
bdgwx says:
”The 36m and 12m Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) from CERES holds steady at +1.5 W/m2 and +2.0 W/m2 respectively. Since EEI is proportional to the radiative forcing (RF) minus the radiative response (RR)”
Yes thats all possible but where is the scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming? All we have is a narrative about the lapse rate ever restricting warming as CO2 increases and no scientific blueprint about how that actually forces the surface.
I realize the claim is the blueprint is in the blackbox models but model output is all over the place. Providing the public a blueprint would mean we only need one model.
I have read that the volcano put tonnes of salt into the stratosphere with the water and this has cut the Ozone levels world wide by 5 percent allowing more UV energy to reach the surface.
Any comments.
Ozone levels are indeed low .
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Phil,
That’s a wonderful link, that I didn’t have. Thanks!
Thank you Phil.
Couldn’t remember where I saw it.
You have read … where?
A peer-reviewed paper, or a denier blog site?
Because the only scientific reference I can find to salt in the stratosphere refers to cooling.
Why would it matter if its a peer reviewed paper or a denier blog site?
Its supposed to be about finding the truth. Ad hominem is all about avoiding the truth.
You have to do your own thinking. Peer review isn’t a gold standard. ‘Denier’ isn’t a lead standard. You should be reading both until you know that the particular article to be patent nonsense.
Because a peer-reviewed paper in a legitimate journal ensures a reasonably good chance that it is correct. Denier blogs are not credible except to the extent they may quote legitimate scientific literature.
Ken – where do denier blogs get their “information”?
Because when a publication is peer reviewed in a reputable journal that means it has been sent through a first pass review to find mistakes by people who understand the material enough to recognize the most obvious occurrences. In this way you have some level of confidence that what you are reading does not have egregious mistakes. Contrast this with contrarian blog sites that will post anything and everything as long as it contradicts the consilience of evidence even when the mistakes are so obvious and egregious that amateurs can often spot them. And then when the mistakes are pointed the blog sites often leave the erroneous information up and in some cases even double down on the misinformation by engaging in conspiracy talk.
uh, seems to me with zero promulgated standards, scope, procedures, or practices surrounding peer review nor any certifications or independence of peer reviewers its all a krapshoot and attempting to pin it on contrarian sites without any substantial evidence fits what peer review can be to a tee.
It’s certainly not perfect. But it has managed to keep out most of the spam from the reputable publishers.
how do you define a reputable publisher? Seems most are either for-profit publishing companies and/or one that represents a special interest as a not-for-profit.
Robert, Ant, and bdgwx live in a dream world. They actually believe that the “legitimate journals” and “peer-review” are about science and reality.
They should try to get something published that debunks the GHE nonsense. Maybe some basic physics, for example?
The ozone hole is primarily in Antarctica, where there has been no sunshine for the past 8 months, hence no additional UV contributing, during the very time when we have had the most warming.
In addition, the NH and the Tropics have had most of the extra warming.
It is however interesting to note that the two last regional obeservations for Arctric and Australia are on a decline while the Tropics are still pointing upwards.
Once again Dr. Roy confirms that climate change is real, it’s here now, and it’s caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels.
For those of you who follow my YouTube videos, you might be interested in my latest video. “Hurricane Coming? Watch Out For Rapid Intensification!”
https://youtu.be/goxaHN2aQTQ
Mark, are you still advertising your worthless videos?
Remember, you stated a hot vacuum tube was “proof” of the GHE!
You don’t have a clue about the relevant science.
Why do some people have to utter complete falsehoods and then attribute them to people who never said them?
If this spike is caused by fossil fuels, what mechanism caused it to rise so quickly? Presumably you have a video for that…
I’m not that surprised it’s still high, it’s been remarkably warm across the globe, but I did expect a drop. The real question is what exactly caused the jump – is it El Nino, or is it HT?
Presumably the HT eruption put a heap of carbonate into the stratosphere as well as water vapour?
But Mr Spencer DOES agree with the cause of the warming trend.
Most responsible adults agree with the warming trend. We’re definitely in a warming trend. Have been since the 1970s.
Next comes a cooling trend. And Alarmists will start panicking that an ice age is imminent….
Please use a dictionary to discover the meaning of “cause”.
Are you STILL tr0lling to promote your “cause”, Ant?
Human GHG emissions only made the spike higher than it would have been otherwise. It is the rapid transition from La Nina to El Nino that is the primary cause of the spike.
i thought that el nino hadnt had its effect globaly yet. i think its the reduction in shipping clouds “aka areosole masking “
UAH responds ENSO. The ENSO phase has changed considerably. The fact that UAH TLT lags ENSO by 4-5 months is suggesting that the current spike may have room to go even higher.
Not much thought put into that bdgwx.
Bottom line is the GMT has risen 1.3C while ENSO has only risen 1.3C.
In 1998 and 2016 the GMT responses were roughly only 33% of the ENSO rise.
Obviously something else is going on and until we understand that and what its longevity is we can’t predict what the future will bring as we wait for ENSO to top out and the 3 to 4 months that it takes for full response. If that unknown sustains itself or increases we can expect more warming but if it doesn’t about 2/3rds of the change we have seen so far is due to something rapid likely not connected to traditional ENSO.
Human GHE emissions can’t do that, bdgwx.
arosol masking has been reduced do to shipping fuel clean up
There is very little certainty in climate analysis. Random events are always a factor. Nonetheless, there is a very high degree of certainty that the current spike event over the last several months is not caused by a gradual increase in CO2 over the last 100 years or even due to the more recent increase of the last 50 years.
If there is some kind of “tipping point” at work, then it needs to be identified in the data. Just claiming it is due to the effects of CO2 finally catching up is rather silly and has no basis in science.
While increasing CO2 may not have been the primary cause of the spike per se it is a significant contributing factor to the fact that the spike is higher than all of the other spikes. This is what happens when you superimpose short term variability onto a long term trend forced by a persistent agent.
Just for the record, that is another silly and meaningless comment. All you did was make a huge assumption about something subject to significant debate.
There is some effect. So what? Temperature measurement is subject to uncertainty and predictions from various simulations have an enormous range of results.
There used to be a political party with the nickname, the Know Nothing Party.
You might consider forming it again, Tim.
Knowing nothing and governments actually goes hand in hand.
They love to serially one at a time reject means of climate change as amounting to too little effect.
Lets see we have:
1. A diminishing recovery from the LIA
2. A solar grand maximum that rolled in setting records.
3. Semi-decadal solar variation arising from chaotic solar cycles
3. Ozone depletion
4. ocean oscillations that affects climate chaotically over variable lengths of time.
5. Perhaps even a variable greenhouse effect still awaiting a full explanation of how it works currently a large number of theories expressed in black box models spewing out a wide range of results but which may arise from any of the above multiplying the affect of those.
True to his real interest, Nate is bringing politics into a climate discussion.
I can remember back in January when we had that really low number below the 30-year average. Most of the more knowledgeable people knew that a single month does not make a trend, but others tried to make something of it. Now that we have a very unusual run of several months the other way, some want to assign trends and causes that have no scientific significance.
The fact remains that the relative strength of CO2 versus water vapor is not well known. Calibration of the effect of increasing CO2 is still pretty much of a guess. The wide range of results of climate model predictions proves that.
This current spike is almost certainly not a random event. Something other than a gradual increase in CO2 is causing it. What this really proves is that human understanding of climate is not complete. There are many significant factors that all interact with each other.
If criticism of people leaping to conclusions makes me seem like a “Know Nothing”. then so be it. I will consider the source.
Yeah, I was in a snarky mood. Sorry Tim.
My opinion on climate science is that the cup is half full.
That we know that the basic predictions of AGW from decades ago have been realized. Many lines of evidence concur.
But there are still some unknowns and uncertainties, e.g. about cloud feedback strengths, and about how the Earth will respond long term, e.g. when will the ice sheets melt, are there tipping points, etc.
Climate science is science because there are still some important questions to be answered.
Seems to me the discussion on warming has migrated due to observations from 3.0C/doubling down to 1.7 to 1.9C/doubling. Has this bottomed yet? Remains to be seen. One simply has to be on drugs to claim predictions are being met.
Mark Shapiro, climate has always changed and will do so with or without mankind. Dr Roy Spencer has said that mankind is not responsible for all of changes. So not what you were trying to imply.
Dr Roy Spencer has also devoted time and effort to understand the effects of urban heat islands that exaggerate the temperature record.
Why you believe that fossil fuels are to blame seem to be unscientific at the least.
You have misinterpreted what I said. The current episode of climate change is driven largely by the emission of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. How do I know that – because I understand chemistry and physics. When fossil fuels are burned they emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That’s just basic chemistry. When more CO2 and other greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere, the average global temperature rises. That’s just physics – a little more complicated than the chemistry part, because quantum mechanics is involved.
Yes, there are other mechanisms that can cause or contribute to episodes of climate change, but those happen over much longer time periods than the current episode of climate change. And, of course, there are some weather phenomena that cause short-term changes in the global average surface temperature. As does the emission of particulates from volcanic activity, and as did the emission of particulates from burning coal and high-sulfur fuel oil. But over the long haul – it’s the CO2 and other greenhouse gases that are driving the current episode of climate change.
Mark, the last time you tired this you used a hot vacuum tube to “prove” the GHE.
Are you sticking with a hot vacuum tube, or do you have some actual science to support your beliefs?
You are trying to grossly simplify a very complex problem. Simple minds tend to view things in simple terms. Researchers such as Dr Spencer are trying to explore the complexities. I firmly believe that these complexities are the key to understanding climate.
Attempting to sell a dumbed-down version of climate, claiming that “heat trapping gases” are burning up the planet, is an obviously effective public relations scheme to influence the masses. I do not see that as something that any scientist should be proud of.
wow looks like the running 13-month moving average might finally reach a new post-1998 peak
might be good news for winter excess deaths heading into the NH winter
but we’ll see how dramatically temperatures fall back, peaks have typically turned into valleys not plateaus
most likely a cloud story since we know from the CERES data that shortwave changes dominate
hopefully the newer generations of satellites will give us a fuller radiative picture soon
of course none of this will prevent cargo cults from spending tens of trillions of dollars on superstitious rituals meant to cool the planet but at least we can enjoy all the running around in circles screaming in terror for at least another month
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/01/opinion/acapulco-saw-the-future-of-hurricanes-more-sudden-and-furious.html.
Check out the video links in the article for a sense of the destruction.
Monkton Paws!
Monkton Paws!
MONKTON PAWS!
M O N K T O N P A W S!
The pause updates came like clockwork on WUWT up until a couple of months ago. Now he is no where to be found. And let’s talk about his prediction of 0.5 C of cooling from the July 2013 value of -0.09 C. We are no where close to -0.59 C. In fact as of October 2023 we are 1.52 C above his prediction. The prediction was so unfathomably bad that in only 10 years he was off by nearly 15x the amount the IPCC was off by in 33 years and in the wrong direction! And ironically since making that prediction the overall trend went from +0.11 C/decade prior to 2013/07 to +0.22 C/decade since. It literally doubled!
This spike will make a good start of the next pause
I know. That is why many of us are puzzled at Monckton’s sudden absence. He has a great opportunity to push a brand new pause and possibly hoodwink his audience for another decade. Rinse and repeat.
Monckton has make it clear he knows there is an overall warming trend has stated it the last few posts he made about pauses thus your statement is misleading.
If past strong El Ninos are anything to go by, he’ll wait until the end of next year, since that is likely to be even warmer. It could end up as an extraordinary anomaly in the UAH plot, given that first strong El Nino years (1997, 2015) don’t really show up in that plot.
sunsettommy, I’m not convinced that he thought the warming would continue. I say that because his audience seems to think that the existence of the pauses necessarily means that warming has stopped permanently. He has not demonstrated a desire to clarify the fact that multi-year length pauses are predicted by climate models and are expected to be common. He also predicted that the Earth would cool by 0.5 C back in 2013. The warming rate since that prediction is +0.23 C/decade vs +0.11 C/decade prior. That’s right…the warming rate literally doubled after he made that prediction.
Is anyone else finding that comments are taking a lot longer to post?
It’s because you didn’t donate
And what exactly should I be donating to?
He doesn’t know, How does he not know ???
I have noticed. I hope its to check for tr.olls.
The sunspots touched the prediction line the adjusted re-shifted one
https://helioforecast.space/static/sync/icme_solar_cycle/cycle25_prediction_focus.png
Between that and the temperature Zharkova’s prediction of a GSM and subsequent cooling isn’t looking good.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/
Gee – and does that make the prediction correct?
It’d be interesting to know why there is the sudden spike.
Attributing it to slow increase of CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t a satisfactory explanation.
It isnt a satisfactory explanation.
And seasonally CO2 levels have dropping for last 4 months while China dumping ever more CO2 pollution.
Though it means a lot CO2 lately, is being absorbed. Maybe because CO2 is plant food, it causes some global warming.
Solar activity has also been crashing recently, and I think it’s going crash a lot more:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Solar wind
speed: 446.7 km/sec
density: 6.23 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 105
https://www.spaceweather.com/
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 159 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.61×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Low
48-hr change: -0.6%
“Maybe because CO2 is plant food, it causes some global warming.”
Please explain the logical link, and why it applies only this year.
Yes, you would have to determine when it started.
Was “it” just last few months, was it “just this year”?
And it mostly has to be global thing- and obviously including the
ocean.
I don’t think I get the news even on important matters, locally, nationally, and certainly not globally.
Corporate news, sucks.
Goggle, world planting tree
Tree Planting By Country: Whos in the Lead?
–As of 2022, China has the most trees planted in 2021 at more than 2.5 billion trees. We expect that number to skyrocket as China sets up a massive tree-planting campaign to achieve 36,000 square kilometres of forest cover.
This is part of Chinas goal of reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2060. In perspective, that area is larger than Belgiums total area.
India, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Mexico, and other countries also ramped up their reforestation initiatives and are planting hundreds of millions to billions of trees annually.
Heres a table showing the top 20 countries that planted the most trees in the last couple of years. Australia ranks 46th, with roughly 11.9 million trees planted in the last few years–
I didn’t know anything about this {though I still don’t know anything- it’s some website I know nothing about:
https://treesdownunder.com.au/tree-planting-statistics/
But rather focusing moon race with China {dumb, dumb- just do it}
we could have tree race with China. Apparently everyone, has fallen behind on this important world shattering thing.
Awhile ago I heard about planting 1 trillion tree.
Google it:
Republicans want to plant a trillion trees. Scientists are skeptical.
New research casts doubt on the climate strategy pushed by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and other GOP leaders
By Maxine Joselow
August 2, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EDT
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) speaks to reporters outside the White House after a meeting with President Biden in May. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
Listen
9 min
Share
Comment1188
Save
When House Speaker Kevin McCarthy toured a natural gas drilling site in Ohio in June, the California Republican vowed to boost U.S. production of oil and natural gas, major contributors to climate change.
Sign up for the Climate Coach newsletter and get advice for life on our changing planet, in your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday.
…
I thought Trump mentioned it,
much earlier.
I liked idea, but do it in Africa.
aresole masking has been reduced do to shipping fuel clean up over past 5 years
Solar wind
speed: 478.8 km/sec
density: 4.95 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 03 Nov 23
“A large farside sunspot is emerging at the circled location”
Also small one in southern hemisphere
Sunspot number: 113
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 158 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.48×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.6% Low
Things could get exciting, but not enough yet to change my guess
about Nov yet {though hard to imagine the spotless day coming anytime soon- but maybe].
Solar wind
speed: 314.3 km/sec
density: 1.96 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 106
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 156 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.39×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.3% Low
48-hr change: +0.4%
Things fade, and seems less exciting. Had 7 numbered spot, despite
big one coming from farside, still got 7.
But still hard imagine a spotless day showing up anytime soon,
but maybe.
The south looks strong, and north, not so much.
The north spot could fade before it reaches the farside.
And 3474 {north} will take couple of days to reach farside.
Solar wind
speed: 314.3 km/sec
density: 1.96 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 106
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 156 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.39×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.3% Low
48-hr change: +0.4%
Things fade, and seems less exciting. Had 7 numbered spot, despite
big one coming from farside, still got 7.
But still hard imagine a spotless day showing up anytime soon,
but maybe.
The south looks strong, and north, not so much.
The north spot could fade before it reaches the farside.
And 3474 {south} will take couple of days to reach farside.
Solar wind
speed: 317.5 km/sec
density: 2.21 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 05 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 95
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 155 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.37×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.3% Low
48-hr change: +0.3%
I was going to mention the coronal hole {somewhat large] looks
like the devil, but that was yesterday, he kind of falling apart
now. Bad hair day.
Solar wind
speed: 510.1 km/sec
density: 10.75 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 81
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 155 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.42×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.4% Low
Six numbered spots. 3474 is leaving to farside. And don’t see spots coming from farside.
Solar wind
speed: 488.3 km/sec
density: 6.27 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 07 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 67
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 146 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.42×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.9% Low
48-hr change: -1.7%
Well, Oulu Neutron Counts at range for going to Mars, if
stayed at this level. But it doesn’t make much sense- and whole
point it this exercise, is get some clue about it.
It doesn’t look good for a spotless day, but I don’t anything coming
from farside, and we just 4 numbered spots.
It seems a good chance Nov sunspot number will be low, but neutron count seems to point at a very active farside {or something}.
Solar wind
speed: 471.6 km/sec
density: 5.00 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 08 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 74
“New sunspot AR3483 is growing rapidly and merits watching as a possible source of solar flares.”
Yup. When no spots coming from farside, you grow one near middle of nearside, also 3479 instead of fading as got near farside, grew bunch
little spots. Both might take off- but 3479 is leaving soon.
And, still nothing appears to coming from farside.
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 145 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.40×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.5% Low
48-hr change: -1.0%
Solar wind
speed: 484.2 km/sec
density: 5.45 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 10 Nov 23
Sunspot number: 93
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 139 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.52×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.3% Low
Quite a bit of spots on half of Nearside going to farside, I don’t see spot coming from farside, if gap continues to grow then might see a spotless day
Well, if this spike is caused by AGHGs, then what, we’ll be at least 5C warmer a year from now.
The short term spike is not caused by GHGs. It is primarily the result of a very rapid transition from La Nina to El Nino. GHGs are the primary contributor to the long term trend in temperature; not the short term variation.
“…primarily the result of a very rapid transition from La Nina to El Nino.”
That supposition does not fit with the fact that previous very strong El Nino events, 1982-83,1997-98, and 2015-16, had more central tropical Pacific subsurface warm water than 2023.
I’m not focused on the magnitude of the current El Nino. I’m talking about the transition from La Nina to El Nino. The year-over-year change as of 2023/09 is +2.7. The only change higher than that occurred during the 1998 runup where the change peaked at +2.9. The runup in temperature from trough to peak in 1998 was about +1.0 C at about the same as occurred here in 2023.
What might be notable in 2023 is that the temperature runup is responding earlier than average. Does it mean this cycle will peak early as well? Does it mean we should expect further increases in UAH TLT? Does it mean the traditional 4-5 month lag is breaking down now?
Regardless the primary component in the spike is the ENSO transition. I am not saying it is the only component though.
Respectfully, I’ve looked at the NOAA CPC data for every El Nino since 1950, and cannot agree.
UAH only goes back to 1978/12. Other than the ENSO transition from 1997 to 1998 I could not find any other transition that rivals 2023 over the period of record of UAH. I’ll double check my work when I get time and see if I missed something.
Also the Global effect of El Nino is coming too early.
I don’t know about that. UAH TLT responds to the ENSO state regardless of whether it crossed the El Nino threshold or not. Going from -1.0 only a year ago to beyond 0 we expected a large spike regardless of the magnitude of El Nino or even if El Nino formed at all. The fact that UAH TLT is typically lagged by 4-5 months is really more of indication that the spike could go higher still.
Yes it can as the atmosphere is low mass as compared to the ocean waters where the sudden outflow of energy enters the air which is why we see a rapid temperature increase in the UAH temperature chart.
Sorry bdgwx, but GHGs are NOT the “primary contributor to the long term trend in temperature”.
And, as Ark informed you, the “rapid” transition from LN to EN was not the “primary contributor”.
Yes I know – just a tease.
The earth is certainly in a warming trend. If UAH data shows it, might as well state that it is confirmed.
Does this mean a catastrophe is underway? Are we going to have more hurricanes, more severe weather with tornadoes, rising sea levels flooding our cities along the shore, more droughts, more inland floods?
I think a lot of that is hysteria. The Arctic ice extent minimum closed at 4,230,000 km^2 last September. That makes 11 years in a row that the ice extent min has closed higher than the 2012 satellite era record low of 3,387,000 km^2. If the earth is indeed warming, it certainly is not affecting the Arctic much for the time being.
Maybe the Arctic ice is in an expansion phase, and the global temperature won’t drop until the ice is sufficiently big.
More hurricanes are causing increasing cost- because people build expensive property in these coastal and other areas. And everyone is
paying that higher costs.
We could lower such costs by having cheap ocean settlements.
Or simple outlaw people living in these dangerous/expensive regions.
I would like to add that the average growth rate of the Arctic ice in October is 2,765,000 km^2. But for Oct 2023, the Arctic ice extent grew 3,714,000 km^2 according to the Snow and Ice Center. If the satellite era global temperature anomaly hit a record high for Oct 2023, it sure didn’t slow down the Arctic ice growth. There must be some other factor involved with sea ice expansion and contraction than just the global temperature.
Perhaps while the atmosphere has warmed recently, the Arctic Ocean has cooled. And this has allowed the Arctic ice to grow faster than normal.
Does that make sense to any of the earth scientists here?
it’s so easy to confuse local weather effects with global climate that people often make use of the confusion to spin their favourite view.
The Arctic temperatures were above normal as well.
Local factors include sea surface and sub-surface temperatures, winds, and if you’re looking at sea ice extent rather than area, whether prevailing winds and current have compacted or spread out the sea ice.
Connecting all that to global temperature is impossible.
Rob Mitchell
1. You are right: the absolute minimum of sea ice extent in the Arctic reached in 2012 has not yet been fallen below:
2012 9: 3.57 (Mkm^2)
2020 9: 3.92
2019 9: 4.32
2023 9: 4.37
2016 9: 4.51
2015 9: 4.62
2018 9: 4.71
2017 9: 4.80
2022 9: 4.87
2021 9: 4.92
2013 9: 5.21
2014 9: 5.22
But… why do you never mention the sea ice rebuild phase, which has its maximum in March:
2012 3: 15.20 (Mkm^2)
2013 3: 15.03
2020 3: 14.78
2014 3: 14.76
2021 3: 14.64
2022 3: 14.59
2019 3: 14.55
2023 3: 14.44
2016 3: 14.40
2015 3: 14.37
2018 3: 14.30
2017 3: 14.27
*
2. And… what about the Antarctic sea ice extent? Is it suddenly no longer of interest just because it drops since years?
Here is, like for the Arctic, the ascending sort for the least monthly values (in Antarctic during February)
2023 2: 1.91 (Mkm^2)
2022 2: 2.16
2017 2: 2.29
2018 2: 2.33
2019 2: 2.65
2016 2: 2.79
2021 2: 2.83
2020 2: 2.87
2012 2: 3.55
2015 2: 3.80
2014 2: 3.84
2013 2: 3.84
and the descending sort for the highest ones (also September)
2014 9: 19.76 (Mkm^2)
2013 9: 19.39
2012 9: 19.21
2020 9: 18.77
2021 9: 18.45
2015 9: 18.44
2019 9: 18.33
2016 9: 18.15
2018 9: 17.96
2017 9: 17.91
2022 9: 17.69
2023 9: 16.80
*
3. Does that not definitely tell us that we should leave this single month comparison, and move to yearly averages instead:
Arctic
2016: 10.16 (Mkm^2)
2020: 10.18
2019: 10.21
2018: 10.35
2017: 10.40
2012: 10.42
2021: 10.57
2015: 10.59
2022: 10.65
2014: 10.81
2013: 10.92
Antarctic
2022: 10.57 (Mkm^2)
2017: 10.70
2019: 10.83
2018: 10.95
2016: 11.18
2021: 11.46
2020: 11.51
2012: 11.98
2015: 12.37
2013: 12.47
2014: 12.73
*
And for the whole Globe
2019: 21.04 (Mkm^2)
2017: 21.10
2022: 21.22
2018: 21.30
2016: 21.34
2020: 21.69
2021: 22.03
2012: 22.40
2015: 22.96
2013: 23.39
2014: 23.54
*
No, I’m not telling you that the Globe is warming faster than some people think. This is a job I prefer to leave to others.
What I want to show you is that your deliberate choice of the Arctic month of September since 2012 as a kind of benchmark against which to measure how sea ice evolves over the years is the worst choice possible.
Source
Monthly absolute values for Arctic resp. Antarctic
https://tinyurl.com/MASIE-monthly
https://tinyurl.com/MANTSIE-monthly
Bindidon,
“And what about the Antarctic sea ice extent? Is it suddenly no longer of interest just because it drops since years?” While it is true that climate skeptics have forgone talking about the low Antarctica sea ice extent in favor of the situation in the Arctic, just looking at long term data you can see that Antarctica’s sea ice extent increased, reaching a record high in 2014.
Also the choice of using the month of September as a bench mark is due to seasonal significance. September represents the end of the Arctic summer and the culmination of the annual melt season. As such, temperatures, while they vary every September, tend to hover around the freezing temperature point. Most of the other months like March are well below freezing.
walter…please don’t confuse Binny with fact. He and his fellow alarmists think melting Arctic ice is an annual event whereas it occurs during one month of Arctic summer. The rest of the year is not only sub-zero C it is as far below zero as -60C.
As long as the Planet maintains its current orbital path and axial tilt, nothing will change that.
He has openly shown that he may not possess the highest level of intellectual acumen.
Hi Bindidon,
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question about the spike in global temperature and the state of the Arctic sea ice. The reason why I chose the September minima of Arctic ice is because for decades there was a lot of hysteria about the Arctic becoming ice free during the summer. For that to happen, the sea ice extent will have to drop below 3,387,000 km^2 at some point. I don’t think that is going to happen anytime soon.
I notice that you are really good at putting together a whole bunch of numbers together and make the numbers mean something. Statistics must be a specialty of yours. But as an operational weather forecaster, I don’t put a whole lot of meaning into the numbers. The Antarctic sea ice extent is a primary example why. It was only a relatively few years back in 2014 when the Antarctic ice reached a satellite era high. Then shortly after that, the ice declined to a record low in 2023. Some people think the almighty CO2 molecule is the reason for that. I don’t think that at all.
When the sea ice reaches a maxima like it did in 2014, the outer edge of the ice is thin. The powerful storms they get down there breaks up the thin ice edge. Equatorward winds pulls the broken ice into warmer waters where it melts. Poleward winds compacts the ice towards the continent. Once the ice is compacted and solid with multi-year ice, it starts to grow again.
There is an ebb and flow of the sea ice at both poles and is highly irregular – kind of like weather.
rob…”I notice that you are really good at putting together a whole bunch of numbers together and make the numbers mean something. Statistics must be a specialty of yours”.
***
You must be confusing Binny with another poster. He certainly produces a lot of numbers but closer scrutiny reveals they are all meaningless, most of them from questionable sources.
For example, even though NOAA openly admitted on their site a few years ago, that they have slashed the number of reporting surface stations globally from 6000 to less than 1500, Binny insists they use more than a 100,000 stations to derive their global average. So, any numbers offered by Binny are seriously exaggerated and based on imaginary data.
Rather than accept what NOAA amitted, Binny calls me a liar for telling the truth.
Walter R. Hogle
1. ” Also the choice of using the month of September as a bench mark is due to seasonal significance. September represents the end of the Arctic summer and the culmination of the annual melt season. ”
You apparently did not (want to) notice the reason for my answer to Rob Mitchell.
I merely intended to show him that choosing 2012, September as a benchmark for Arctic sea ice variations, let alone for a global view on them, is the worst choice possible.
You made out of my comment exactly the contrary, trying to view it like an alarmist post to which you urge in replying with trivial ‘skep~tic’ details.
*
2. ” … just looking at long term data you can see that Antarctica’s sea ice extent increased, reaching a record high in 2014. ”
That’s now really good.
On the one hand, when shown how the Arctic behaves in the long term, Pse~udo-skep~tics never tire of answering that “melting of Arctic sea ice has slowed recently”:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17RBeTrCw6bTcvnUOI3Sxvr_-jXx81VvS/view
But… on the other hand, they never tire of showing how Antarctica behaves in the long term when shown the recent decline in sea ice extent in Antarctica:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16WB0LUn6XujkDG9FgKYU1IhPZMyfznUH/view
That’s like reversing the logic of the argument so that it always agrees with one’s narrative, isn’t it?
*
3. ” As such, temperatures, while they vary every September, tend to hover around the freezing temperature point. Most of the other months like March are well below freezing. ”
Why are you suddenly diverting, moving away from discussed sea ice matters to temperatures?
March is in the Arctic the month with the highest sea ice level. Best example is 2012 itself:
2012 9: 3.57 (Mkm^2)
2012 3: 15.20
*
Monthly absolute values and period averages, superposed over the years:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h4-D5VPavodVT0TqxLoT-Sr7ntIXF2qw/view
– Daily anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010, superposed over the years:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
{ Unlike for the monthly values, the minimums for daily values are in October, and the maximums in April/May. }
*
In the sum, Mr Hogle: no idea anymore of what you are trying to show us here. Sounds like dominated by your gut feeling rather than by impartially looking at observations.
Rob Mitchell
Thank you for your convenient reply. Much appreciated, and way, way more interesting than Mr Hogle’s post.
I have a few comments on your thoughts too, but I got a little tired after my answer to him and will therefore answer to you in more detail tomorrow.
*
To this below, however I can reply right now.
” I notice that you are really good at putting together a whole bunch of numbers together and make the numbers mean something.
Statistics must be a specialty of yours. ”
No they aren’t at all.
But it is evident that after decades of work in engineering, a discipline inevitably increasingly dominated by software engineering (*), the former engineer often will tend to use his professional knowledge in some hobby corner, in my case… climate data, he he.
But unlike weather station data which request design, implementation and V&V of a ‘whole bunch’ of software, what I showed here is no more than downloading data accessible by anybody and putting it, like does Roy Spencer in his head posts, into number columns and graphs with the help of a spreadsheet calculator.
_____________________________________
(*) Think for example of the unimaginable difference between the brandnew, completely software-dominated domestic gas burner we use at home since a few months, and that which was installed in the early 1990s.
” He has openly shown that he may not possess the highest level of intellectual acumen. ”
Oh! How interesting!
Instead of trying to contradict what I wrote, Mr Hogle resorts to discrediting and denigrating.
*
As one of my former university professors told me decades ago:
” Who is unable to scientifically contradict soon will start to polemically discredit. ”
Like the poster Robertson, Mr Hogle also seems to lack both technical skill and scientific education necessary to accurately contradict those he disagree with. Otherwise he clearly would have done that.
*
Does Mr Hogle also think, like claims Robertson all the time, that
– NOAA uses only 1500 stations worldwide (despite Roy Spencer using about 12 times more of them in his most recent research);
– the Moon cannot spin about its polar axis;
– time does not exist;
– GPS does not need any relativistic correction;
– etc etc?
*
Mr. Hogle’s response – if he gives one at all – might well tell us about his level of agreement with Robertson’s nonsense and therefore about his own “level of intellectual acumen”, right?
Bindidon says:
He has openly shown that he may not possess the highest level of intellectual acumen.
Oh! How interesting!
Instead of trying to contradict what I wrote, Mr Hogle resorts to discrediting and denigrating.
*
As one of my former university professors told me decades ago:
Who is unable to scientifically contradict soon will start to polemically discredit.
Like the poster Robertson, Mr Hogle also seems to lack both technical skill and scientific education necessary to accurately contradict those he disagree with. Otherwise he clearly would have done that.
————————-
bindidon after not providing any proof of his claims to contradict immediately sets off as usual in an effort to polemically discredit his critic.
My main point is that it is crucial to recognize the inherent complexity of the climate system and the dynamic nature of Earth’s environmental processes. The situation of sea ice at both poles, with the Arctic and Antarctic exhibiting different trends over time, serves as a testament to this complexity. It’s unwise to rely on oversimplified explanations that fail to account for the intricate interplay of factors influencing our planet’s climate. I’m not a coolista.
My motivation in making that comment is to inject a bit of humor and provoke lively discussions.
Hi Rob Mitchell
” The reason why I chose the September minima of Arctic ice is because for decades there was a lot of hysteria about the Arctic becoming ice free during the summer. ”
I fully understand, and never supported a bit of this ridiculous idea. You are right: till the entire Arctic becomes ice-free it might take some really longer time.
*
” But as an operational weather forecaster, I dont put a whole lot of meaning into the numbers. ”
Hard to imagine, as your job today implies, as I often have read, the use of really big computers because the observed cells became over time smaller and smaller, thus quadratically increasing their interconnections.
Your world, Rob, can’t live without real-time processing of huge amounts of numbers anymore.
How else could we explain the incredibly accurate short-time forecasts for sun, clouds, wind, precip provided by e.g. ‘my’ weather web site ‘wetteronline.de’?
*
” The Antarctic sea ice extent is a primary example why. ”
Again, I understand you, but please read my reply to Mr. Hogle, in which I point out conflicting skeptical discourses for the Arctic and Antarctic.
There is also something more here.
This time it is about the fundamental difference between the two poles, which makes comparisons difficult.
While the North Pole is a small area of pack ice surrounded by a piece of ocean and a large amount of land, the South Pole conversely is a huge piece of land surrounded by a huge ocean with cold, strong circumpolar currents and a piece of land in comparison.
Thus we shouldn’t wonder about how great the difference between extent and area (aka 100% pack ice) is in the Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V3ES4AgH6e2cJUuYVdDpknvtb7RAeePt/view
when compared to the Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kZTBwTO3nQrYgxuU46GrJ5xRX1MY4J4Y/view
*
” … kind of like weather. ”
Yes, over the long term you are obviously right. We two know how warm it was in the Arctic in the 1930s.
I have long wondered whether climate alarmism is about the fear of the next glaciation period.
Now, as everyone knows global warming and global glaciation is related the Milankovitch cycles.
But card carrying global warming cargo cultists, have made various
promises about how higher CO2 levels caused by human activity will delay the next glaciation period by thousands if not tens of thousands of years.
Now, I am not too concerned about the next glaciation period- I think there could various advantage related to it, especially if we have ocean settlements- which seems likely to me within a couple decades.
But New York Times was terrorizing the public with coming doom of the “next ice age” several decades ago. And it seems a lot people fear the glaciation period which is coming.
In our current global average surface temperature of 15 C, the coldness kills far more people than any warmth. But this mostly economic issue, as we are able of keeping a home warm enough, but due poverty and/or disability, some people can’t afford to keep their homes warm enough.
[[But whether from the cold or too warm, it’s usually a matter of neglect which causes the suffering and death.]]
Another aspect is saving fossil fuels for later use {when might need it more} and use instead fossil fuels in distant lands and keeping emergency reserve locally.
I think an “all the above” approach to our energy needs is the best way to deal with the global demand for energy. This idea of immediately shutting off one source of energy when the alternatives aren’t ready to replace it is harmful to the well-being of humanity.
I think “all the above” is putting highest in priority of exploring the Moon and then, quickly exploring Mars.
And that roughly, doesn’t cost anything. And adding delay does cost a lot.
So, to date it has been a high cost, because it hasn’t been a national priority and has taken far too much time.
Also wasting a lot time is the experimental mining of oceanic methane hydrate deposits. I have no clue whether oceanic methane hydrates are mineable or not.
And I think we should have a lot fracking and as a result of all this drilling everywhere, also do geothermal electrical generation.
I also think we do a lot drilling on Mars.
That might cost a fair amount. Maybe most of drilling will have to done later by human settlement. But more drilling, generally, than what NASA seems to be planning to do.
El Nio and stratospheric HTHH volcanic effects should persist for at least two months. Maybe more for HTHH.
Cleaner air over oceans from recent shipping requirements to replace heavy bunker fuels with less polluting low-S fuels will warm the surface for the foreseeable future.
CO2, not so much.
Nio and stratospheric HTHH volcanic effects should persist for at least two months. Maybe more for HTHH.
Cleaner air over oceans from recent shipping requirements to replace heavy bunker fuels with less polluting low-S fuels will warm the surface for the foreseeable future.
CO2, not so much.
The tropical storm Pilar which is south of lower Mexico, is predicted
to become hurricane and travel due west {towards the distant Hawaii- below it}.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
And it’s Nov. When will the hurricane season, end?
There also disturbance on Atlantic side with 20% chance.
But nothing which will prevent a Starship launch {yet}.
Or rocket launches from KSC.
That is an ugly misleading statement
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.14 C/decade”
Of xourse it is, it cannot change everyone’s month. But instead of that pointless statement, you can plot the trend. Would be interesting to see how it has been accelerating.
Besides that, baseline should be from the beginning of the measurement, not moving it from decade to another. This is not a moving average, doc 😂
There you go. Useful tool, Woodforthetrees.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2024/every/plot/uah6/from:2014/to:2024/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:2004/to:2014/every/trend/plot/uah6-land/from:1994/to:2004/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1984/to:1994/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2023/every/trend
20 y trends more robust, IMO.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/every/plot/uah6/from:2004/to:2024/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2017/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:1998/every/trend
The 20 year trend does suggest acceleration. Pity that ENSO adds so much short term variation.
Ummm…
The discussion was about T trends:
“The 20 year trend does suggest acceleration.”
Your response was:
“Pretty darned good demonstration of the futility of our efforts to reduce carbon.”
Clearly you were saying increasing T demonstrates CO2 has not been effectively reduced…..clearly linking the two!
Now a week later, you try to shamelessly revise history..
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1558478
Pretty darned good demonstration of the futility of our efforts to reduce carbon. . .a 7% decrease since 1990 and 20% decrease since 2005.
https://tinyurl.com/3hnpxkzb
One country’s policies are not the world’s.
Look up the word futility Nate.
So you admit that T rise accelerating is “good demonstration of” that CO2 rise is causative?
boy you don’t know much about whats going on.
the US has reduced emissions as i described above. But the rest of the world has increased emissions more than we reduced them. thus the lack of acceleration is evidence of a poor correlation to co2 as the cause. which of course has always been the case. for instance the models failed to reproduce the warming of the first half of the 20th century.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1558267
Well I am not seeing much of it.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/to:2001/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/trend
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1285502/annual-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/to:2002/trend/plot/uah6/from:2002/trend
Bill, you keep making a clear link between CO2 and global T.
Oh well!
One cannot derive a statistical probability of causation from a single and very imperfect correlation. But I do think thats how activists think and I have a lot of experience with that. So I could do a study on that but why bother when its so obvious right on the surface.
“Besides that, baseline should be from the beginning of the measurement, not moving it from decade to another.”
While I agree that the baseline is best kept consistent, it doesn’t matter whether you use the first or last year, or 30-year average smack bang in the middle, if the interest is in the long-term trend, the difference in the results is so little as to make no difference.
IOW, now matter which baseline you choose, the difference in long-term trends measure no more than a few thousandths of a degree per decade.
Worrying about which baseline demonstrates only that you miss the point.
Did the trend in CO2 change recently to drive such large increases in temperature? Nope. Clearly something other than CO2 drives temperature.
CO2 has driven the long term warming trend in the UAH data from about anomaly -0.3C in 1979 to 0.3C at present.
Some additional factor has increased the September and October temperatures by another 0.6C.
Sorry Ent, but CO2 did NOT “drive the long term warming trend in the UAH”.
Once again you’ve been tricked by all the nonsense out there.
ET Says: CO2 has driven the long term warming trend in the UAH data from about anomaly -0.3C in 1979 to 0.3C at present.
What possible evidence do you have to supprt such a nonsensical claim? Simply eyeball the 2 data sets, there is no relationship what so ever between CO2 and Temperature…none.
Your argument by appeal from personal incredulity is not convincing.
There’s a strong correlation, a demonstrated causal link in the laboratory and observations which show that the same thing is happening in the atmosphere. All of it is published in the literature, replicated, coherent, consistent and consilient.
If you insist on closing your eyes, covering your ears and making la la noises when the evidence is presented I can’t help you.
Entropic man says:
Theres a strong correlation, a demonstrated causal link in the laboratory and observations which show that the same thing is happening in the atmosphere. All of it is published in the literature, replicated, coherent, consistent and consilient.
———————-
lol!
em is obviously getting senile. if he has any links to this it must be from the blogosphere.
Is this your Mike Flynn bit, Gill?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Second flight of Starship closing in on potential November launch
written by Chris Bergin November 2, 2023
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/11/starship-update-110223/
“The flight of Booster 9 and Ship 25 is now in the final stage of preparations, focused on regulatory approval that will allow SpaceX to set a launch date. That target is currently tracking mid-November as the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) works on the final element of the FAAs launch license via an updated Biological Assessment under the Endangered Species Act.”
SpaceX’s Starship Is Ready! How Has It Improved?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bigk98T4qkQ
Will Starship launch soon, what are chance of success and what
will amount a success of the second launch attempt?
I would say what would an incredible success of 2nd attempt is quickly getting to the 3rd test launch of Starship. And really fast would be within month of time. Though 3rd being done in early part of 2024 would count as a success.
And delivering payload to orbit with 3rd or 4th test launch and/or when it’s also when, it’s not called a test launch.
Anyhow, SpaceX trying to launch 100 rockets this year, and will attempting to do 144 in 2024. And part of 144 will lifting part of Gateway lunar station in latter part of year- with the Falcon Heavy.
Welcome to the mwp 2.0
The question is why the following measurements do not show an increase in temperature?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
Because the stratosphere is cooling
You would expect this As the concentration of GHGs in the stratosphere increases, the outward radiation from the stratosphere increases and the stratospheric temperature drops.
that doesn’t fit your theory Entropic. Doesn’t the CO2 up there send only half of what it receives to space and the the other half back to the surface? Now you say it will send what? 60% to space and only 40% back to the surface?
You are describing the behaviour of CO2 in the troposphere. Most of the excitation of CO2 molecules is due to upward longwave radiation from below, which is then redirected in all directions. The net effect is to add kinetic energy to molecules in the troposphere, warming the atmosphere
In the stratosphere most of the excitation of CO2 is due to the kinetic energy of molecular collisions. The resulting radiation is then lost to space or the troposphere. The net effect is to remove kinetic energy from the molecules, cooling the stratosphere.
seems to me that ozone levels primarily determine how much energy is absorbed in the stratosphere since almost all the ozone is there and ozone absorbs on average about 30 watts of UV.
Except for the lapse rate, the atmosphere is warmer where it is absorbing energy and coolest where it is losing heat.
You see temperature gradient between heat sources and heat sinks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature#/media/File%3AComparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
The surface is a heat source, warming the atmosphere. The tropopause is a heat sink as GHGs radiate much of the outward longwave radiation. Temperature drops as you gain altitude between the surface and the tropopause around 10km.
Once above the tropopause the stratosphere warms as you move towards the ozone layer at 50km. This heat source is due to the a n s o r b t I o n of UV.
Above the ozone layer the temperature drops as you rise towards the next heat sink at the base of the troposphere where heat is lost to space by thermal radiation.The
Finally the temperature starts to rise again as the remnants of the atmosphere are warmer by the solar wind.
Entropic man says:
”Above the ozone layer the temperature drops as you rise towards the next heat sink at the base of the troposphere where heat is lost to space by thermal radiation.”
The troposphere is not above the ozone layer EM.
Sorry, my mistake. That should have been:-
Above the ozone layer the temperature drops as you rise towards the next heat sink at the base of the THERMOSPHERE where heat is lost to space by thermal radiation.
em the mesosphere is the layer above the ozone layer in the stratosphere. the thermosphere is the top layer and contains no ghgs.
way too much theory, Ent. Talking about heat and heating in the stratosphere is not the same as talking about it at sea level. Heat is dependent on the number of atoms per unit volume and by the time you are well into the stratosphere, that number has been reduced to a tiny amount in comparison.
binny…” there has been no warming since 2016
***
This quotes RLH out of context. At the time, he was making the point that the trend had flattened out.
The trend always flattens out after a new record.
There have been five previous UAH records since 1979 and the trend flattened out after each of them.
None of them indicated the end of the long term trend.
No doubt the trend will flatten after the 2023/2024 peak and Lord Monkton will claim an end to global warming.
So the world is always getting warmer, forever. Has CO2 been responsible for the latest rise?
Yes and no.
CO2 has raised the base temperature but other factors have produced the peak.
For example, in 1998 the CO2 induced long term average anomaly temperature was about -0.2C and other factors raised the observed peak by 0.8C to 0.6C.
Now extra CO2 has raised the underlying temperature to 0.3C and other factors have raised the observed temperature by 0.6C to 0.9C.
indeed but before accounting for the effects of the adjustocene.
I used UAH data.
Do you regard that as part of the adjustocene?
how are you defining ”longterm average anomaly”
Entropic man says:
”There have been five previous UAH records since 1979 and the trend flattened out after each of them.
None of them indicated the end of the long term trend.
No doubt the trend will flatten after the 2023/2024 peak and Lord Monkton will claim an end to global warming.”
Yep nobody can yet predict the climate. We are just running a huge experiment on the people of the world in the name of trying to learn what will happen next.
Unfortunately the elites can afford to pay and the people it harms can’t.
The elites are the ones opposing attempts to minimise global warming. Of course, they are the ones who can move to estates at higher altitudes or higher latitudes.
The poor are stuck with whatever the changing climate throws at them. . They can’t migrate because the countries they need to migrate to won’t let them in.
net migration is currently towards warmer climes. it is still a cold world despite the warming. for example it was but a few years ago Viking buildings emerged from glacial ice that covered it 300-600 years ago. people in general still need more heating than air conditioning. in the US people send more than 3 times as much on heating as opposed to air conditioning $1020 vs $326.
https://www.self.inc/info/cost-of-heating-air-conditioning/
you need to broaden your reading list EM
What changing climate, Ent? Can you offer proof of any current climate changing?
I had in mind the Guatemalan farmers who migrated North when increasing heat and drought killed their coffee plantations.
They headed for the only country with the resources to accept refugees and the US refused to let them in.
ent…we get droughts regularly in parts of the province of British Columbia but those parts had desert-like climates long before climate change was an issue.
Vancouver is in a rain forest climate zone while part of the province 150 miles northeast is in a desert climate zone. The difference in climate is due to the lack of rainfall because there are mountains in the way that suck up precipitation from incoming rain clouds.
The droughts are natural, brought on by natural variables. Here’s an example…look under climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spences_Bridge
Nearby Lytton has a slightly different, albeit arid climate, and is often the hottest part of Canada. Again…see climate…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lytton,_British_Columbia
Slightly different climate within 50 km of each other.
Meantime, 150 miles southwest you have Vancouver…with an very different climate than the other two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver
That’s a better and more realistic form of climate change. And none of the three have changed over the past 200 years despite increases in CO2.
Entropic man says:
I had in mind the Guatemalan farmers who migrated North when increasing heat and drought killed their coffee plantations.
They headed for the only country with the resources to accept refugees and the US refused to let them in.
————————
where do you get this nonsense from EM? Coffee production in Guatemala has been normal despite increasing production from neighboring Honduras.
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/hungry-desperate-climate-change-fuels-migration-crisis-guatemala-rcna2135
that article doesn’t say one word about coffee.
also it has always rained like crazy in central america. nothing unusual about that. my gawd the whole country is nearly all tropical rainforest. nbc is just one of those orgs greatly benefitting from democrat policies of trading US industrial jobs for the enforcement of intellectual property rights and tons of money for the elite class making the workers here jobless and poor and the rich richer. this corruption has us on the fast track to third world status.
Hmmm:
https://www.statista.com/chart/28351/global-net-per-capita-migration-by-country/
It appears that your author has included vacation and business travel in his data.
Author:
”By “migrant”, it is meant: Any person who, leaving his or her usual place of residence, crosses an international border, regardless of the nature and cause of the movement or the duration of the stay.”
ent…the trend flattened for 18 years following the 1998 extreme and for 6 years following the 2016 extreme.
Why? If CO2 is contributing to warming and CO2 increases each year, why is there a flat trend at all?
Bill Hunter asked
“how are you defining longterm average anomaly”
In the same way that Dr Spencer defines his decadal warming rate of 014C/decade, by linear regression.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2024/every/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2024/every/trend
The green line shows the long term warming trend due to (insert preferred explaination).
This indicates that, all else being equal, the present anomaly temperature would be expected to be about 0.25C.
Instead October was at 0.93C. This, and other deviations such as the 1998 peak, are due to other factors such as ENSO and albedo.
Gordon Robertson
“the trend flattened for 18 years following the 1998 extreme and for 6 years following the 2016 extreme.
Why? If CO2 is contributing to warming and CO2 increases each year, why is there a flat trend at all?”
I might ask you a similar question. If all temperature changes are due to the recovery from the LIA, why are there flat trends at all?
lol!
there are a whole lot of reasons why temperature changes.
Entropic man says:
”the trend flattened for 18 years following the 1998 extreme and for 6 years following the 2016 extreme.
Why? If CO2 is contributing to warming and CO2 increases each year, why is there a flat trend at all?”
I might ask you a similar question. If all temperature changes are due to the recovery from the LIA, why are there flat trends at all?
Who said all temperature changes are due to the recovery from the LIA EM?
We know the LIA occurred. We also know that proxy records show natural variations on a frequent basis of amplitudes that included the LIA.
What hasn’t been demonstrated is a means for CO2 in the atmosphere to affect temperatures. . .and that’s not to say there isn’t a possibility of that.
What Gordon is saying is since flat periods still occur there are means of natural temperature variation to explain all variation seen.
Bindidon,
“Bindidonsays:
October 29, 2023 at 12:38 PM
Maybe some geniuses endlessly blathering their egomaniacal guesses about absorp~tion / emission of radiation try to learn a bit, for example by carefully reading:
https://tinyurl.com/5795hyru ”
Let’s see what it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
” Roughly three-quarters of the Sun’s mass consists of hydrogen (~73%); the rest is mostly helium (~25%), with much smaller quantities of heavier elements, including oxygen, carbon, neon, and iron.”
How do you explain, Bindidon, the existence of the continuous Spectrum of Solar Radiation ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You are asking the wrong clownius , he thinks you can power
light-bulb by radiation from ice cube
Aaaah! The constantly stalking, scientifically at least 100% uneducated dachshund is back, and once again has time to deal with discrediting and denigration.
Allez, mon petit teckel! Retourne bien vite dans ta niche, et ronge bravement ton os.
Bindidon soundly rejects the idea that a cold atmosphere will heat a warmer surface used widely to influence the less educated. He calls it the Dachshund Theory.
Sorry, Vournas
Your reply doesn’t have anything to do with my comment.
CV’s comment is about the science you brought up, Bindi. But, you don’t understand the link you found.
Yeah, Bindiclown soundly rejects the laws of fizzix discovered in the last 200 years since the two hundred years old book he read was written by people who thought the Sun was a giant burning lump of coal so emmiting spectra is no issue to him,
and That’s besides his learning you can add and subtract radiation back and forth willy nilly without considering the wave length or anything.
“you can add and subtract radiation”
Still not sure how anything can abs.orb low low energy IR photons, Eben?
Nate just assumes that photons exist. Objects with no mass that is based upon a theory rather than an observation. As Einstein said:
”All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question “What are light quanta?” Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”
Albert Einstein, 1951
Uggh…go ahead and ignore the extensive experimental evidence, if it pleases you.
And no I’m not going to find it for you, go look it up.
of course you want me to look for it because there is none, zilch, zip.
As I said, go ahead and ignore the evidence, and pretend it does not exist, if that works for you.
Well we all know you will never find any.
“Well we all know”
Got any evidence? Of course you don’t.
the evidence is obvious. You are looking for somebody else to look.
Bill, physics is built on experiments testing theory. If the photon model had notably failed experimental tests, it would not continue to be used.
If the photon model had not been useful to advancing physics and technology, it would not continue to be used.
Your objections do not appear to be based on any awareness of experiments where the photon model failed.
Einstein’s complaints about the word ”photon” was that the suffix implies a particle. that leads people to extrapolate on the photon model into believing stuff beyond what is actually known about the photon model. what we know can be more correctly expressed as light quanta something we know something about but far from all.
so all i complain about regarding the ”model” is when you start claiming that backradiation must be absorbed because you have extrapolated from the cartoon depiction of a model and believe that the movement of photons can be divided into two separate flows as opposed to a single net flow.
the common argument for that extrapolation is a question. namely, how else would photons know when to flow. an argument from ignorance is one that is in the form of a question. and people smugly ask the question as they are convinced of the two seperate flows because of a cartoon depiction of the model.
and before you go off. keep in mind one that there are no perfect absorbers of photons, no perfect emitters, no substance is perfectly transparent and that photons are reflected at various intensities.
its like trenberth using black body quantities when those actually experienced with high emissivity surfaces, particularily in combination with high levels of reflectively generally involves special materials. so a combination of special materials and electronics of ingenious design can both do a lot of neat stuff and help lead to unjustified extrapolations regarding the cartoon version of the photon model that may well be just not so.
So you are not aware of any experiments that falsified the photon model.
Got it.
Gee Nate I am not aware of any experiments that falsified the existence of God either. Go figure!
Are you unaware of the difference between religion and science?
Your or my God theory can never be falsified. Thus it is religion.
The photon theory is falsifiable. An experiment could prove it wrong. None have so far, however. Thus it is science.
Nate says:
”Are you unaware of the difference between religion and science?”
Of course not but it seems you are unaware. We are talking about science, you know experiments, to prove something and you asked if I was aware of any experiments that falsifies the CO2 theory.
If you can use a science experiment to falsify the CO2 theory then you should also be required to use a science experiment to falsify the God Exists theory.
Fact is if you want to prove a theory you need to conduct an experiment and show that the experiment can create a GHE everytime its replicated. If you don’t have one your theory is religion.
I agree the belief that God exists is a religion also.
I think maybe you should brush up on the scientific method Nate. . . seems as though you are really getting rusty with it.
“you asked if I was aware of any experiments that falsifies the CO2 theory.”
No. The photon theory!
Is your memory really that poor?
“If you can use a science experiment to falsify the CO2 theory then you should also be required to use a science experiment to falsify the God Exists theory.”
Brilliant.
Apparently you STILL can’t figure out the difference between science and religion.
Nate says:
”Brilliant.
Apparently you STILL cant figure out the difference between science and religion.”
Nate just fell off the turnip truck.
apparently he isn’t aware of science providing reasonable arguments for 4 billion year old earth. or the Scopes Monkey trial closing arguments.
he also seems to believe that science is for proving non-existence of something as opposed to the well established purpose of the scientific method to bring forth evidence of the existence of something.
See what Feynman says when he talks about theory being tested by experiment.
That would be an excellent idea for you to pursue Nate since you know so little about it.
Bill gets silly. That’s how we know the discussion is over.
yep once again a thread ends after nate proclaiming he knows the science exists without being able to locate a shred of it.
No it ended when you lost the science thread and found God.
no it ended as a science discussion the moment you first posted where you suggested that i have zero scientific proof that your god doesn’t exist to which i responded that you also don’t have any scientific evidence that my God doesn’t exist. which by the way both are true.
My God is photons?
You stopped making any sense awhile back.
nope! your god is what you believe about light quanta and while you can question me you don’t match up at all with Einstein and his opinion for which there is zero science that has light quanta operating as you claim. if i am wrong bring forth the evidence of that. if not then just put your tail between your legs and walk away.
“your god is what you believe about light quanta”
Here you are unable to argue with science, so you shamelessly tell me what I believe.
Einstein made the photon discovery in 1905, and it greatly advanced quantum theory. Bohr advanced the theory by explaining the spectra of atoms as emission of photons from quantized orbits.
Later, in 1916, Einstein explained the fundamentals of stimulated photon emission and abs.or.ption, that led ultimately, much later, to the invention of the LASER.
In the 1920s he helped to understand the strange statistical properties of photons and atoms, and he predicted the Bose-Einstein condensate, which was finally discovered decades later. This again helped advance quantum thoery.
Compton in 1922, did experiments that showed photons carried momentum and energy, just like a particle, and their collisions with electrons satisfied conservation of energy and momentum of the ejected photons and electrons. Most physicists began to accept that photons existed after this.
Many others advanced the theory and experiments further.
In 1931, Raman, showed that photons carry quantized angular momentum, that can be transferred to/from atoms in their scattering off atoms and molecules.
Decades later in 1950s, Einstein was sadly no longer at the forefront of quantum theory and didnt like some of the developments. By then he was quite old, and seeking a grand unified theory which he, sadly, never found.
Others carried the torch on quantum theory, particle physics, and General Relativity, cosmology, etc.
Einstein was absolutely brilliant, but only for limited period of time. That is often how it works, unfortunately.
Einstein did not OWN the photon, and does not get the final word on its interpretation.
Today, individual photons can be detected. They exist. Feynman in his Lectures explains why some experiments can detect light as a particle and other experiments detect light as a wave.
There are plenty of sources out there that discuss these discoveries and experiments. Go read about them.
Nate says:
your god is what you believe about light quanta
Here you are unable to argue with science, so you shamelessly tell me what I believe.
Einstein made the photon discovery in 1905, and it greatly advanced quantum theory. Bohr advanced the theory by explaining the spectra of atoms as emission of photons from quantized orbits.
———————————
You blew it right out the gate Nate. Einstein did not discover photons. He expanded on Plancks quanta particularly the high frequency end of it and analogized the photo-electric effect to the joule expansion of a gas.
He disliked the coining of the term photon because the ‘ton’ suffix suggested it was a particle when it really is much more like a wave with frequencies that can be absorbed or reflected and has some peculiar behaviors. the joule expansion of a gas is a far better analogy that the summing of particles that the CO2 mavens cling to around here.
As we both discuss all the evidence for photons, it becomes clear that
“of course you want me to look for it because there is none, zilch, zip.”
your loud denial of any evidence was total BS!
Physicists, who have read and understood Einstein’s 1905 paper, can understand that he was specifically motivated by blackbody radiation in a cavity behaving like a gas of particles.
We are also aware that his 1916 paper further elucidated the particle-like behavior to derive stimulated emission (Laser mechanism)
Then we know that his 1920s work went further in showing that photons could have the statistical properties of particles, while atoms could have the statistical properties of waves, then deBroglie and others confirmed this, and this led to the full Quantum Mechanics of Shrodinger.
There is no science rationale to deny the evidence of Compton’s experiment, and many others, showing that photons behave like particles.
But you try anyway, just to be contrary.
Yes Nate some of the peculiar behavior is like particles. But still they act more like waves.
And of course your defense that there is some evidence they are particles is absent any defense with zero evidence offered concluding they are particles.
binny claims the reply from Christos has nothing to do with his reply. Seems to me, Binny’s reply has nothing to do with the original comment by Christos. But that’s nothing new for Binny.
–THE NEW SPACE RACE: Chinas Space Pioneer raise funding for its Falcon 9-class rocket.
The funds will also be used for production of the smaller Tianlong-2, which had a successful inaugural flight in April this year. That launch made the company the first Chinese commercial firm to reach orbit with a liquid propellant rocket.
Construction of a launch site for the Tianlong-3 at Chinas Jiuquan spaceport in the Gobi Desert is also noted.
Space Pioneer is targeting a first Tianlong-3 launch in the first half of 2024. It aims to launch 30 times per year within three years of the debut launch.
By then, SpaceXs Starship should have Falcon 9 completely outclassed assuming the Biden administration gets out of the way.
Posted at 11:44 am by Stephen Green–
https://instapundit.com/
It seems Biden Administration is getting out of way. It seems it’s in SpaceX court to see if it works, and should find out within couple weeks.
Even though nobody likes SLS, the Biden Administration should push it to go faster.
More from Green:
–THE NEW SPACE RACE: A commercial spaceplane capable of orbital flight is ready for NASA testing.
NASA will soon start testing what is dubbed as the worlds first commercial spaceplane capable of orbital flight, which will eventually be used to resupply the International Space Station. The agency is set to take delivery of Sierra Spaces first Dream Chaser, which should provide an alternative to SpaceX spacecraft for trips to the ISS.
In the coming weeks, the spaceplane (which is currently at Sierra Spaces facility in Colorado) will make its way to a NASA test site in Ohio. The agency will put the vehicle, which has been named Tenacity, through its paces for between one and three months. According to Ars Technica, NASA will conduct vibration, acoustic and temperature tests to ensure Tenacity can survive the rigors of a rocket launch. NASA engineers, along with government and contractor teams, are running tests to make sure its safe for Tenacity to approach the ISS.
All going well, Tenacity is scheduled to make its first trip to space in April on the second flight of United Launch Alliances Vulcan rocket. The rocket has yet to make its own first test flight, which is currently expected to happen in December. However, given how things tend to go with spaceflight, delays are always a possibility on both fronts.
Reliance on Vulcan which itself relies on Blue Origins oft-delayed BE-4 engines is a real problem: After Vulcan slips, Space Force ends up awarding more missions to SpaceX. It is imperative to rapidly deliver critical space capabilities to the Joint Warfighter as soon as they are ready to be launchedwe cannot leave capability sitting on the ground.
Posted at 8:38 am by Stephen Green–
I keep forgetting about Dream Chaser, it’s pretty exciting, I hope it works. Also:
KRUISERS MORNING BRIEFING: Flailing Democrats Hit Comical New Low Over Speaker Mike Johnson. As has been mentioned here in the Briefing, the worst things that the Democrats have been able to come up with when whining about Johnson is that he likes Donald Trump, and he loves Jesus, neither of whom is popular with the Left.
Posted at 9:09 am by Stephen Green
Jesus is pretty popular, though Trump would say he is more popular.
JRA55 October 2023 Global temperature anomaly:
+0.79C
The question is whether the increasing UVB radiation due to the decrease in ozone production in the stratosphere can be absorbed by water vapor in the troposphere above the equator?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2019.png
ren…I think the real question is how much UV a trace gas at 4 ppmv can absorb.
ent…”Now extra CO2 has raised the underlying temperature to 0.3C and other factors have raised the observed temperature by 0.6C to 0.9C”.
***
Not a shred of proof. Not a mention of recovery from the Little Ice Age, which is far more likely.
Tremendous amount of ice accumulated during the LIA and it takes a long time for that ice to melt, especially given the fact the planet produced massive amounts each winter season. The gradual warming since 1850 of about 1C is far better represented by that re-warming than by a trace gas that has been proved to offer an insignificant amount of heating to the atmosphere and the planet.
NASA’s Lucy Spacecraft Discovers 2nd Asteroid During Dinkinesh Flyby
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASAs_Lucy_Spacecraft_Discovers_2nd_Asteroid_During_Dinkinesh_Flyby_999.html
The picture looks like small rock is stuck on the bigger rock, but the small rock is closely orbiting- it’s binary asteroid.
A US judge has just dismissed a vote in the US, won by a Democrat, in which ballot boxes were stuffed by people collecting ballots and marking them Democrat.
I wonder where we have heard that before?
https://nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/ballot-stuffing-concerns-forces-ct-judge-to-overturn-democratic-mayoral-election-results-john-gomes-bridgeport-new-england-trump-joe-ganim-john-gomes-connecticut
Where were these judges during the last presidential election when the same kind of ballot stuffing of abasentee votes took place?
“There is no proof that widespread election fraud impacted the result of the 2020 presidential election.”
The whole American political system is crooked. Even those entering the system with honour have to become corrupt to become elected.
It’s what you get in a system where any special interest group can buy a politician and the only way to remain in office is to buy elections.
So much wrong with the US electoral system.
Voting on a weekday instead of the weekend.
The Electoral College.
The party in power runs the elections in many states.
The conflict of interest in the latter is absolutely mind-boggling. How have they not managed to get an independent electoral commission together for federal and state elections? It’s completely bizarre.
“How have they not managed to get an independent electoral commission together for federal and state elections? ”
Too many vested interests in the current system.
When elections are won by the candidate with the largest advertising budget it is very easy to control them through their campaign funding. Since they control the electoral system it easy to rig so that, once purchased, your purchased politician can stay in office.
The real question the US needs to answer is
“Quis custodet ipso custodes?”
barry says:
”So much wrong with the US electoral system.
The Electoral College.
———————
Its a democratic federal republic. If voting proceeded like the UN then it would be just a federal republic. Federalism is another means of distributing power. What isn’t assumed by the federal government is the power the states have. If you don’t like your state then move. Movement is unimpeded. All you desire is more power over others.
Individual votes in some states have more power than individual votes in other states, belting, “one person one vote,” and sets up a system which skews the attention of candidates to certain states.
Preferential voting solves the problem of the electoral college.
I also forgot to mention the fund-raising aspect of the US election system, which is bad for all sorts of reasons. Elections can be won by raising capital rather than interest. The process is dumbed down and sold out to monied interests.
the only office it affects is President, who is elected by the states with vote totals of each state. not much difference here than parliamentary systems where parliament selects the prime minister. individual parliament constituencies can like the states have high pluralities that leads to dilution of individual votes.
I’m very much aware that the College elects the president. 538 people out of an electorate of millions choose the president. And the EC isn’t proportionally representative.
Another ill of the EC is that it makes it near impossible for third party candidates to get up, tying the US to a two-party system.
Are you arguing that if other countries dilute individual votes, that makes it a good thing in the US?
barry says:
Im very much aware that the College elects the president. 538 people out of an electorate of millions choose the president. And the EC isnt proportionally representative.
——————–
The states each get a proportional number of representatives from 1 to 52 currently based upon population.
Each state has 2 state votes.
What causes large differences between popular vote and electoral vote is certain large states providing a huge plurality for one candidate. In the 2020 election if California’s high presidential popular plurality alone was far more than the nationwide plurality.
When you form a union between 13 autonomous states, the small states would not join if New York was going to decide everything, everytime.
You can whine all you want about that, but it isn’t at all likely to change.
I looked it up. A voter in Wisconsin has three times the clout of a voter in New York.
So you argue that a state has more right to electoral even-handedness than an individual. That in American Presidential elections the will of the people is subordinate to the ambition of the states.
And has happened many times, the president can be elected by a minority of the population.
Perversely, the one office that is national, that stands for all Americans, is the one office that is not decided by the majority of voters.
You haven’t turned me around yet, Bill.
“it isn’t at all likely to change.”
Of course it isn’t.
Not true. Every Wisconsin voter is represented by 8 house delegates. New York by 26 house delegates. . . .apportioned by population.
electoral votes are 10 for Wisconsin and 28 for New York. Thus the difference in vote power is less than 5% because of the 2 Senate-based electoral votes that are not apportioned by population.
Bottom line is a Democratic Federal Republic provides some power to localities. If a New Yorker feels slighted he can freely move to Wisconsin and increase his voting power.
If you can’t win your state then why should you be able to use the federal government to overlord over the place and people you live with? Its like going to the UN to ask the Ambassador of Barundi to force the US to do something you want.
IMO we could use a few more amendments to limit the power of the federal government. . .but recognize the limitations they currently operate under are a lot stricter than any other place I am aware of and I am glad about that.
That’s right, I typed Wisconsin when I meant Wyoming.
Wyoming has 3 electors and a population of 590,000 = 196,000 voters for every elector.
New York State has 29 electors and 19.8 million population = 683,000 voters for every elector
A vote in Wyoming carries more than 3 times more weight than a vote in NY.
I way to ameliorate this and other problems with EC without abolishing the electoral college would be to assign electors in proportion to the actual vote distribution, rather than winner take all. But not many states would be up to diminishing their political power in that way, though some have signalled they would be willing.
“If a New Yorker feels slighted he can freely move to Wisconsin and increase his voting power.”
That’s a piss-poor defense of the system.
For a dive into the statistics of states, the EC and individual votes, this is a pretty good piece.
https://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-the-electoral-college-74280
A point it makes is that the way the presidential vote is run actually penalises states with high turnout – looking at EC representation with actual turnout numbers.
High turnout doesn’t equate to a super majority win.
What equates to a super majority win is special interests within the state into which the people have bought into in the interest of their state.
thats why almost all of the major countries have representatives electing the Chief Executive rather than the populace so that interests are balanced across the geography as well as the population and regions are not represented sufficiently.
Maybe its the communist leaning that causes democrats to not look to their own means but to the means of others.
We protect minorities with constitutional amendments. Farm states with minority populations apparently also need protection from you guys.
“We protect minorities with constitutional amendments. Farm states with minority populations apparently also need protection from you guys.”
I don’t know who “you guys” are, but thanks for lumping me in with whoever that is.
You give a leg-up to minorities in voting that you would not dream of doing regarding jobs.
You are prioritising state interests over individual interests. For the one job that represents everyone equally in the US, you argue for unequal votes.
Imagine if the Democrats argued that black voters need to have a greater weight in their individual votes to put them on par with white voters.
“Protect minorities” my arse. What, farmers matter more than black people?
All you are spewing is nonsense Barry. The federal electoral system reserves rights for the states. Its OK if states are different. States elect their governors and representatives and senators all democratically with equal power of votes.
When it comes to federal representation all they do is seek power over the states. If you are a New York resident why should you be able to tell somebody living in Kansas how they should live.
IMO, its a completely different issue than democracy which I am a big advocate for at the local level. Competition should exist between the states with the federal government working out disputes between individual states. From that standpoint perhaps each state should have the same number of votes. You probably like the UN and thats largely how it works, each nation getting one vote. So don’t try to feed me your typical BS and keep your nose out of my business.
“If you are a New York resident why should you be able to tell somebody living in Kansas how they should live.”
If you are Kansas resident, why should you be given more clout with your vote so you can tell New Yorkers how to live?
No one in NY is telling people in Kansas how to live. All this is about is choosing a president. Apparently states rights matter more than individual rights, and for the only elected position in America that represents the whole nation, one person one vote doesn’t count. It’s crazy. Why give any state any kind of preferential treatment? That’s what is given to Wyoming, where each individual has 3 times the clout in their vote than the average in the rest of the country.
An immediate solution to the way the US votes is to use preferential, or ranked voting. This makes it likelier that other parties’ candidates could be voted in, and prevents the situation of a candidate winning who more than 50% of the population would not choose. That is the problem with the first past the post, winner takes all method. It means that many votes do not count for anything. Ranked choice gives more power to the people when choosing who will represent them.
Probably not intentionally, but you guys are aligning yourselves with Trump, and his narrative that elections cannot be trusted. Really no democratic institutions can be trusted.
If that is believed by most people than that is the end of democracy in the US.
The US is already in decline, politically, economically and militarily. Most declining empires rot from within before they are defeated from without.
Yes, but I see no need accelerate the end of democracy.
For some reason I am reminded of a 1940 science fiction story about one Nehemiah Scudder who was elected POTUS in 2012 and became dictator in 2016.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22If_This_Goes_On%E2%80%94%22
The solution is obvious. More transparency of election controls. If the public can see who is voting that fear will diminish rather than increase. Why are the liberals aligned against that?
The secret ballot is there for a reason. If you know how someone votes, then you can intimidate them.
I live in Northern Ireland.I’ve seen every way in which interested parties can rig an election, from gerrymandering and selective location of polling stations to zombie voters and those who vote early and often, to threats and intimidation. Every possible way to boost ones side’s vote or discourage the other side.
As a result we now have one of the most independent and tightly managed electoral systems in the world.
One which the US might emulate.
Secret ballot is absolutely essential.
The whole election concern in the US is purely driven by Trump in 2020. He told a lot of lies that his staff now admit were lies.
But the narrative has stuck because so many Americans bought his flim-flammery. Trump did more damage to the US in leaving than he did in office.
“can rig an election, from gerrymandering and selective location of polling stations to zombie voters and those who vote early and often, to threats and intimidation.”
I see.
But nothing like that has happening in the US. For many decades, we have had largely fair elections. And that led people to trust them, until 2016.
” But nothing like that has happening in the US. ”
Really?
On various television stations including Sky, ITV and the BBC I saw maps of convoluted districts where one district had 90% Democrats and the other three had 40% Democrats. The result was that a city with a Democrat majority elected one Democrat and three Republicans.
I saw, in the same county, queues of voters outside too few polling stations in the Democrat housing developments, but no queues outside the abundant polling stations in the Republican suburbs, some of which had drive-thru voting.I saw crowds of Republicans obstructing polling stations and demanding that they should stand behind polling workers to “oversee” the count, despite not having accreditation.
Some areas required a driving licence as proof of identity before voting. Guess who have fewer driving licences.
Most of the examples were Republican, but both sides do it. Gerry Mander, who invented the voting district trick, was a Democrat.
There is a big difference between identifying who votes and a secret ballot. Two different concepts entirely. I am surprised these guys don’t even know that.
Is it untrue to say that generally Republicans argue for policies that tend to prevent people voting, and Democrats argue for policies that enable more people to vote?
barry says:
Is it untrue to say that generally Republicans argue for policies that tend to prevent people voting, and Democrats argue for policies that enable more people to vote?
————————–
Near as I can tell republicans argue for policies that only allow people to vote once and are qualified to vote.
I agree democrats don’t care if they are legal or how many times they vote.
“On various television stations including Sky, ITV and the BBC I saw maps of convoluted districts where one district had 90% Democrats and the other three had 40% Democrats.”
Gerrymandering is a problem.
Separate issue from whether the election results are valid and trustworthy.
“Near as I can tell republicans argue for policies that only allow people to vote once and are qualified to vote.”
Near as you can tell?
They actively try to make it harder for people to register, vote remotely, vote before election day, and even just wait in line (famously banning the giving of water on 10-hour lines). They ban votes for convicted people, even after release, or make it difficult to impossible for them to be reinstated on the electoral roll. They require a limited kind of ID, so that in some areas people who don’t have a drivers’ license can’t vote. They’ve closed ballot drop-boxes after 5pm, disenfranchising those who work 9 to 5.
Bringing me back to one of my first points, what in the name of all that is holy made the US pick a weekday for an election day? Why hasn’t this been changed to make it easier for people to vote?
I really don’t know the answer, but I’m going to bet it has something to do with religion. Which would, of course, be completely at odds with the spirit of the constitution.
There is a lot wrong with the US electoral system, and the things that prevent change is an over-developed sense of tradition and vested interests in keeping the status quo.
I mean, the party in power running the election?? What tin-horned democracy is that?
“I mean, the party in power running the election??”
Huh?? Where do you get that idea?
“Each state has a chief election official, who has an oversight or advisory role over state and federal elections. However, elections are usually administered at the county level, though in some states cities or townships run elections. No two states administer elections in the same way, and there can be variations within a single state. Elections can be run by a single individual or department, a board or commission of elections, or a combination of two or more entities.
Election administration in America is highly decentralized. There are more than 10,000 election jurisdictions in the U.S. The size of these jurisdictions varies, with the smallest towns having only a few hundred registered voters and the largest jurisdiction in the country with over 5 million. Local election officials also rely on trained poll workers (often bipartisan) who assist voters during early voting and on Election Day. Through its clearinghouse function, the EAC provides guidance and best practices to assist election officials, but the EAC does not have regulatory oversite of elections.”
https://www.eac.gov/who-is-in-charge-of-elections-in-my-state
Here you go, Nate.
https://boltsmag.org/whats-on-the-ballot/local-election-administration/
Depending on the state, county, the electoral process is overseen by a politician, partisan entity, or political appointees.
Take the first one, Alabama. The elections are run by the secretary of state, as happens in many of the united states.
This is an official of a political party. A partisan overseer.
Governors can appoint election boards.
These are all appointments made by politicians. Electoral boards can be designated by political parties, and where both parties (because independents don’t count) designate, there is usually in imbalance towards the part in power. Some county clerks that run election are voted in by the people – they have party affiliation.
The only national electoral watchdog is one that looks at campaign finance.
It sometimes seems as if the US has never heard of an independent electoral commission, and could not conceive of such an obvious solution at the state and/or national level. It’s like, “Whatever you’re talking about, this is how WE do it.”
“Each state has a chief election official, who has an oversight or advisory role over state and federal elections. ”
But thy don’t ‘run’ the elections. That is done locally.
And by tradition, the secretary of state is supposed to provide apolitical oversight.
But of course, Trump famously tried to undermine that, and failed in eg Georgia and other states.
Yes the system has flaws, because it depends on people, on the whole, acting with integrity.
OTOH, because it is highly decentralized, it would be near impossible to facilitate a large scale election fraud.
And of course, if parties have an issue with election administration, it ends up in court. We saw this in many states in 2020.
“And by tradition, the secretary of state is supposed to provide apolitical oversight.”
But why not remove any possibility or semblance of bias by establishing an independent, apolitical election body that has neutrality as one of its core tenets? Then you don’t have to rely on tradition.
As an observer from a country that has had an independent electoral commission with such tenets for many decades, it’s crazy that the elections are overseen and/or run by a partisan group or overseer, regardless of tradition.
It puts the US in the position of having a MAGA sec of state or governor oversee elections. It creates a condition where a political party or candidate can challenge the results based on suspicion of impropriety rather than simply a close result begging for a recount.
‘Tradition’ is often the reply, as if the notion of an independent body is made of invisible teflon. I’ve made this point for years, and have been anticipating someone making some argument against it. I think you implied that an independent body might be more likely to commit wide-scale fraud than the current patchwork? That would be the first time anyone has ever even hedged at a criticism of the notion. But it still leaves me perplexed that political appointees seem like a better idea to run elections (for many states the election boards are staffed by political appointees or designees, or elected officials) than an independent commission – that also does the electoral borders, so no party can gerrymander.
Barry we have the courts.
But even courts can be biased just like any commission. The problem with libs is they expect the government to do everything for them.
I live in a country where partisan politics are limited to the parties.
Judicial appointments are made with respect to competency and experience in Australia. In the US the process varies among the states, but often it is done with elections, and the candidate campaigns and even gives her views on topics in order to win votes.
This is antithetical to the law. To telegraph your judicial leanings at all, rather than (as in the case of the Australian bar at the state level), perform duties without fear or favour or bias. At the state level, the Bar appoints Australian judges, not politicians.
It helps that our Supreme Court is not designed solely to fixate on constitutional matters, and, more importantly, that cases that come before the supreme court rarely touch on politically partisan issues (whereas the US Supreme Court seems designed to decide partisan issues, making the appointment of no-fixed term justices a partisan minefield).
Rolled into the US political system, and the elections part and parcel, is announcing one’s leaning. For those who process the law, this is extraordinary – justice is meant to be blind.
For those who vote, having to register with a political party seems like madness. Why must you announce your affiliation? Why not vote on the merits of the policy offers of the day? (I know the answer – to prevent faithless voters tipping the balance in primaries).
Primaries – another built-in issue.
I’ve expanded further than I wished to go. This was an area of study for me a long time ago. The Trump phenomenon brought a lot of that early learning back, where some of the issues that once were a theoretical danger have become an actuality or nearly so (such as the ‘alternate’ slate of electors).
I doubt that there is any cure for the degree of partisan polarisation in the US, save time and better luck in the politicians that step up, but I’ve never seen it worse in my lifetime. The friction has opened up some the holes in the system.
An independent electoral commission sounds good in theory.
Institutions, like democracy, and government, only work by tradition.
For example, in some countries like Russia, that tradition has not existed, and so they don’t expect elections to be fair, nor expect govt, police, courts to be anything but corrupt. So, they tolerate it.
The traditions here include that people trust elections to be fair. The tradition is that the loser concedes the election. Another is that justice is trusted to be apolitical. For instance, by tradition, the justice department is supposed to operate independently of the President.
Those are threatened now by Trump and allies. Once that trust in democracy and impartial justice is gone, that is probably the end of it.
“An independent electoral commission sounds good in theory.”
It is a very successful institution in several developed (stable) nations. I don’t know of any case where an independent electoral commission in a developed nation (or otherwise) has ever committed fraud.
These commissions have their own budgets and processes, and are not dictated to or staffed in any way by government. A core tenet is a commitment to neutrality, and that quality is vetted when recruiting and mandated in training.
In Australia, we never fear that the elections are rigged. The AEC is trusted – precisely because it is separate from government. The redistribution of electoral boundaries was handed to the Australian Electoral Commission, where in the past gerrymandering used to occur when the governments of the states would tip the scales.
As someone who has lived with the AEC all my voting life, and who remembers the practise of gerrymandering prior to the formalisation of the AEC in 1984 (the Bjelke-Peterson govt in Queensland being a notable example), it just seems crazy that partisan legislatures and leaders could have any hand at all in running elections and drawing electoral maps.
Sounds good, Barry.
Here, wrongly or rightly, states rights are emphasized.
It is both good and bad. It allows states to experiment with new ideas, eg California led the way in reducing automobile pollution and renewable energy. Massachusetts led the way in gay marriage, and holding tobacco companies accountable.
Bad is states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida censoring school books on evolution or black history.
Nate says:
”Institutions, like democracy, and government, only work by tradition.
For example, in some countries like Russia, that tradition has not existed, and so they dont expect elections to be fair, nor expect govt, police, courts to be anything but corrupt. So, they tolerate it.
The traditions here include that people trust elections to be fair. The tradition is that the loser concedes the election. Another is that justice is trusted to be apolitical. For instance, by tradition, the justice department is supposed to operate independently of the President.
Those are threatened now by Trump and allies. Once that trust in democracy and impartial justice is gone, that is probably the end of it.”
Well said Nate! But you left out the traditions about how ballots are handed out and how verification of who is registering and voting in the past. Those are important traditions as well that Trump was not the first to violate by a long shot.
“Here, wrongly or rightly, states rights are emphasized.”
Yes, I’m strongly aware. And this is a parallel with individual rights. Classical liberalism is a powerful notion in the US. But while your reply might imply that this is a foil to the idea of independent electoral commissions, it is actually an argument for them (ie – limits on government).
Well, I’ve pressed the point beyond the limit. Cheers.
“Those are important traditions as well that Trump was not the first to violate by a long shot.”
Election fraud is rare in the US. Trump did more damage to the trust in American Democracy than any other person in US history. That damage is going to last a long while and he is solely responsible for it.
so you actually believe that Trump snaps his fingers and thousands show up at the capital to protest the election?
Seems to me folks were worried about election integrity long before the election with all the traditions the democrats were breaking leading up to the election. If you don’t know anything about measures to ensure election security I suppose you might actually believe the finger snapping explanation. Sad!
“that Trump snaps his fingers”.
Pulleez!
More like using his various loudspeakers to rant over a period of 2 months, during which he pushed various conspiracy theories and never conceded as all previous losing candidates had done (in at least a century), and insisted that his VP should illegally toss out the results.
another nate lie.
hilliary never conceded that trump was a legitimate president and its more the case that trump repeated the observations of his supporters. everybody noted the count progression near the end in some close states where numbers approached 100% for Biden in the most delayed count in history.
“so you actually believe that Trump snaps his fingers and thousands show up at the capital to protest the election?”
Have you forgotten what happened? Trump spent months before the election saying if he lost it would be because it was rigged. He made similar complaints for the 2016 election, denying Clinton’s popular majority.
When he lost the election he claimed on the night he’d won it, and created narratives to upholster his claims, and borrowed heavily from right-wing website conspiracy theories, who set about trying to prove Trump’s complaints were based on something.
He spoke about saving the US from corrupt elections to his followers, never conceded he lost, and then invited them to come to Washington on January 6, saying, “will be wild.”
Then on January 6 he told the crowd to march on Capitol Hill. And they did.
So yes – he is entirely responsible, from promulgating the big lie to calling on his followers to come to Washington, march to the capitol building and “fight like hell.”
Your comment that he “snapped his fingers” is so bone-headedly forgetful about what happened, so casually revisionist, that I guess you must be in the cult of Donald Trump.
“Seems to me folks were worried about election integrity long before the election”
Trump ratcheted a perennial minor issue into a massive conspiracy, and did so from the pulpit of the presidency.
“with all the traditions the democrats were breaking leading up to the election.”
Republican legislatures, governors and secretaries of state also changed the rules to deal with the COVID situation. Your revisionism is unsurprisingly partisan. Mostly the changes were done through legislation. Different states give different powers to election officials, some changes occurred under those powers. In 2 or 3 cases, those decisions were reversed in court, and none of them had any bearing on the outcome.
“If you dont know anything about measures to ensure election security”
It was a fascinating subject to explore in the lead-up and the aftermath of the election. I suspect I know a bit more about it than you for 2020.
In fact, many recounts, several in the same electorates in battleground states, confirmed the results, as did 60+ court cases, as have Trump’s inner circle under scrutiny in court recently. They confirmed they knew it was a lie. Fox News was fined for lying about it. Fox anchors are now on the record saying they didn’t believe it at the time.
It was a great big lie. Trump initiated it, stoked it, his followers looked for evidence and “found” it everywhere, and right-wing mouthpieces gave his views credence. Remember bamboo paper from China? Rigged voting machines? Other countries supposedly taking electronic votes and corrupting them?
All this and more turned out to be false. But the right wing bought it all.
Why? Because of Trump.
Barry close elections are contested all the time. there is no such thing as a tradition of not contesting elections or losers calling the winner illegitimate.
i don’t know how many shenanigans there were or if they would affect the election outcome. but the fact remains that breaking traditions was a major concern of yours and an unprecedented number of those were broken in ballot availability without any solicitation to get a ballot.
you recognize that then you start making up traditions of not contesting elections while steadfastly ignoring real traditions that were broken. . .by whoever.
my only concern is that we don’t gravitate down into a 3rd world ballot box stuffing country.
I think you are revising history Bill. I’ll leave it at that.
Yeah I agree Nate since the facts of occurred in the last election represented a significant loss of control to the extent no elected official wanted to be responsible for it and thus nothing was done. Sort of business as usual for governments which have little overseeing them.
“another nate lie.
hilliary never conceded that”
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-concedes-to-trump-we-owe-him-an-open-mind-231118
Oh well!
“Barry close elections are contested all the time.”
I’m well aware. They are also mandatory in many states at a certain threshold of close result.
“there is no such thing as a tradition of not contesting elections”
That’s not what I’m talking about.
“or losers calling the winner illegitimate.”
There is an unbroken tradition of presidents conceding the election when they lose. There is an unbroken tradition of presidential candidates conceding loss after court cases have settled the matter.
There is the odd candidate outside the presidential elections who refused to concede they lost. But this is not seen as traditional, meritable, or characterful. It’s just being a shitty loser.
“the fact remains that breaking traditions was a major concern of yours”
I have no idea what you are referring to here. What did I say?
“and an unprecedented number of those were broken in ballot availability without any solicitation to get a ballot.”
You speak as if the rules never change for voting in states. That’s just ridiculous. The rules are often changed. Introducing voting machines in elections well before 2020 is just one of the more obvious changes.
Greater accessibility was given to voting during COVID. Almost all of these occurred within the law. Two or three items were challenged in court and rejected.
It wasn’t a conspiracy to bias the vote, it was dealing with social restrictions and old people afraid to stand in lines in 2020, during the peak of the COVID experience.
Democrats tend to mail their votes more than Republicans (thought there is some variation state to state). So what did Trump do months before the 2020 presidential election? He railed against mail-in voting, called it suspicious, and of course the right echoed his views.
Recount after recount confirmed the result. He should have conceded. But he is not built like that. He is a small person who just can’t ever ever admit to losing. His ego Trumps the good of the nation. He even said the election clauses in the Constitution could be “terminated” in his efforts to argue he won.
I don’t know how people fail to see what kind of animal Trump is. He is a complete narcissist.
Nate says:
hilliary never conceded that
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-concedes-to-trump-we-owe-him-an-open-mind-231118
Oh well!
——————
It doesn’t count when you take it back shortly thereafter. A concession has to be continued. Checking the box doesn’t count.
What have you been googling now, Bill, to make you twist things up?
Clinton never rescinded her concession. Stop distorting reality.
A guy who is stoopid enough to believe that this was a real ballot stuffing case, and not an implausible-looking fake story is really one of the stoopidest of the stoopid.
It is abundantly clear that this alleged ballot stuffing is a staged story.
The unspeakably ridiculous idea of using a black woman alone proves it; because every Trumpist then believes that it was done on behalf of the Democrats, since Trumpists firmly believe that nearly all black women would vote for Democrats only.
indeed its stoopid to jump to conclusions. like determining something by the color of ones skin or their gender. one should simply wait for the evidence. seems some people are so unsure of themselves they need to leap at every opportunity to show how smart they are. . .of course that just results in the opposite effect.
AGW denial is a lost cause. Might as well discuss politics…
The promotion criteria for Chinese local governors is characterized by the GDP growth of the local economy relative to its competitors. A level of GDP growth that is behind (or ahead of) the competing regions’ is considered to be a loss (or gain) for a typical local governor. The local governor uses public investment financed through government debt as an instrument to steer the local economy.
Excessive GDP competition among local governments has led to serious debt problems.
Local government debt is way higher than official stats show, a burden that is ultimately be shouldered by Chinese households. As China’s economic miracle turns to fiscal crisis, the depletion of local governments’ credit capacity has not only crowded out the rising demand for social security expenditure but also undermined the financial health and confidence of Chinese households.
There is nothing to deny, AGW as a theory has never been proved.
So much for all the predictions of cooling over the last 6 years.
But I’m sure it will happen soon. Again.
More coolin is right around the corner
Keepin the dream alive…
Are you willing to bet your bottom dollar, Eben?
barry…we have recently set records for October for coldness here in the Vancouver, Canada region.
This months high global anomaly is obviously being influenced by a slight warming elsewhere.
That is a brilliant observation, Gordon. You’ve finally worked out that your back yard is not a proxy for the global average.
However, your logic is silly. Why must it be a slight warming elsewhere if cold records are being set in Vancouver?
Especially when the last two months have smashed the previous record for any monthly anomaly by 0.2C?
Reflexive denial makes your comments dumb.
0.2C has ‘smashed’ the record??? You alarmists are seriously desperate. Turn the thermostat up 0.2C and see what a difference it makes. Turn it up 1C and see if you notice.
Yeah Gordon they know that. What they worry about is 500 years from now as if that will continue indefinitely. And sadly those that should know better don’t know better.
The average T increase where most people live, land in the Northern Hemisphere, has increased by ~ 3.5 degrees F.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/nhem/land/36/9/1850-2023
That is noticeable.
Didn’t Roy just figure out about 57% of it was UHI?
No.
No?
Roy said: ”the top 2 categories show the UHI temperature trend to be 57% of the reported homogenized GHCN temperature trend. So, as one might expect, a large part of urban (and even suburban) warming since 1895 is due to UHI effects.”
Nice job with the cherry pick and leaving out the crucial context.
“And the effect is much larger in urban locations. Out of 4 categories of urbanization based upon population density (0.1 to 10, 10-100, 100-1,000, and >1,000 persons per sq. km), the top 2 categories show the UHI temperature trend to be 57% of the reported homogenized GHCN temperature trend. So, as one might expect, a large part of urban (and even suburban) warming since 1895 is due to UHI effects.”
So it is for urban areas, not including rural areas.
And furthermore, it is the US only!
The NH land has much more non-urban area.
So indeed NO.
and the population is by far the most dense in the northern hemisphere. keep up the good work. we will get there eventually.
Have you looked at the chart at the top of this page? The last two months stick out like no other in the record. As Roy quipped last month, “We’re gonna need a bigger graph.”
So you’re comparing the temperature of a room to global average temperature. Your flash of brilliance didn’t last long, sadly.
SOI is climbing
https://i.postimg.cc/xdFyx00z/Clipboard011.jpg
ENSO forecast is nosediving
https://i.postimg.cc/1zpMtxPn/nino34-Mon11.png
Where do you think the temperature is going
ENSO will nose dive in spring as always after an El Nino.
And?
Anser the fokkin question
The El Nino is right in the beginning of doing its global warming.
The forecast shows it running its normal course until next spring, and its global warming effect will last through much of 2024.
No nose-diving apparent.
Scrapping the carbon tax would reduce inflation by 15%.
https://tnc.news/2023/11/02/scrapping-carbon-tax-inflation/
It’d be best to end the dreams of green marxist dystopia before the economy is further ravaged by bad economic decisions on the back of a false climate narrative.
“The inflation rate currently sits at 3.8%, but Macklem claimed that could go down by 0.6% to 3.2% for the next year, without the federal governments carbon pricing scheme further driving up the cost of goods and services.”
Also. . .”Statistics Canada reported that 15% of households are cutting back on their grocery costs to afford paying their energy bills.”
Malnutrition is on the increase. The liberals love that.
We don’t have a carbon tax in Australia, but energy prices often soar. Perhaps it’s not as simplistic as the carbon tax alarmists make out?
Well I am a Californian. Gas prices here are $2 a gallon more than Florida where I was last month. $5+ rrather than 3+.
The article stating that was for Canada.
There is no carbon tax in Australia and gas prices have soared over the past 16 months.
Perhaps its not as simplistic as the carbon tax alarmists make out?
A little tidbit our Freedom Fighters won’t mention:
And?
And what, Mike Flynn – can’t you count?
And? Freedom Fighters? Have you gone quite mad?
What are you braying about, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earths atmosphere is very thin and, therefore, doesnt have any essential greenhouse effect on the Earths average surface temperature.
When it is acknowledged Earths atmosphere is very thin it will become obvious, Earth doesnt have any significant greenhouse warming effect.
***
Earths atmosphere greenhouse effect is only some
+0,4 oC.
Earths atmosphere greenhouse effect was very mistakenly estimated as being
+33 oC
which is very much wrong !
The +1,5 oC rise is due to orbital forcing, the additional CO2 cannot be considered as warming Earths surface by +1,5 oC, because the entire atmosphere warms surface only by some
+0,4 oC !
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth’s sea level air pressure is about 14.7 pounds per square inch
or 144 x 14.7 per square foot or about 10,000 kg per square meter.
10 tons per square meter of mass is not particularly thin.
With Venus it’s 92 times more, but in terms of heated air, it depends upon elevation the air is heated at, which with Venus is around 50 km
above the land surface. Warm or cold air when it falls gets more kinetic energy and so becomes warmer.
And sunlight at Venus distance from the sun is more than twice the sunlight that reaches the Earth ocean surface where the sunlight warms the Earth.
Water clouds aren’t heated much by direct sunlight, but the Acid clouds on Venus are heated more and there is more sunlight to heat them.
On Earth clouds burn off by sunlight- they evaporate and the clouds on Venus also evaporate from the sunlight.
But Earth and Venus are evaporatively cooled {and vapor heats when condensed back into liquid of solids} and matters when in terms of elevation it does this.
“But Earth and Venus are evaporatively…”, I meant: Both Earth and Venus are evaporatively cooled…
And in terms greenhouse effect it’s about the uniformity of global temperature, on Venus the atmosphere which thin like Earth rotates around the planet about every 4 to 5 days, this creates a global uniform surface air temperature.
Of course, if you put Venus at Earth distance from the Sun, you get less mixing, and acid clouds don’t heat up much. And Venus surface is less uniform and thicker at surface, and the cold dense gas is colder air, the 15 C degree on average.
15 C is cold Earth air, 15 C Venus thicker air is even colder.
Say, there is billion people living in Venus orbit. They get a lot of free solar energy and the solar system provides them with oceans of water.
And you want to live on the Venus surface. And people in Venus are “robbing” 1/2 of Venus nature sunlight. Or the planet is getting as much sunlight as Earth gets. And Venus precious acid has also been “robbed” as had billions of tons of CO2 been robbed. But Venus still has about 3 atm of nitrogen and more than 50 atm of CO2.
Venus still doesn’t rotate fast and you want live in the warm “bright spot” which slowly moves.
Or if don’t live in the bright spot, it’s always darkness. The polar regions are always dark, and the bright spot is where the sunlight is higher the 45 degree above the horizon.
Most people in in the Venus sky, but you want to warmer air at the ground and to live life of traveling.
You might be able to live in dense air which more than 20 C and your house/living quarters might closer to vacuum, say 2 atm of pressure.
And you are constantly around room temperature without need heating or cooling and there isn’t any glaring sunlight.
Hmm, I was thinking, about Earth at Venus distance.
It seems Earth would be habitable planet. Particularly in terms of oceanic life.
And even if Earth had a slow rotation period like Venus, it would be habitable.
I think there could issues related to global weather.
And it seems Earth would be a lot cloudy.
Earth currently, is pretty cloudy, but it seems Earth at Venus distance would be more cloudy than Earth has ever been, though if Earth had much slower rotation, it’s cloudiness and weather in general has too many unknown factors, but Earth should still be a habitable planet.
Hello Christos,
“because the entire atmosphere warms surface only by some
+0,4 oC !”
I must disagree. The atmosphere does not warm the surface at all. Indeed it cannoy as a warmer surface heats the atmosphere, not the reverse..
as the 2lot demands…
Hello PhilJ,
In your opinion there is not any radiative greenhouse warming effect.
Not even in the agricultural greenhouses? No radiative IR capturing warming?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hello Christos,
An agricultural greenhouse prevents concevection.
The so called greatest ‘greenhouse gas’ drives convection and COOLS the surface
A colder atmosphere cannot heat a warmer surface. 2LoT
PhilJ,
I’m on your side, albeit with a slightly different mechanism.
The atmosphere prevents about about 35% of energy from the Sun from even reaching the surface. That’s why maximum temperatures on the surface are about 30 K less than the Moon.
No radiation of any frequency at all is prevented from leaving the surface, and fleeing to outer space – never to be seen again! So much for the “conservation of energy” that SkyDragon cultists love to misunderstand. About as silly as their “energy balance” nonsense – where “energy out” must equal “energy in”.
No GHE at all. None. Nothing. Zero.
“Thats why maximum temperatures on the surface are about 30 K less than the Moon”
And how bout splashing why the AVERAGE T is higher on Earth!
Non-radiant atmospheric insulation Nate. Oxygen and Nitrogen only radiate at high temperatures. If it weren’t for water and CO2 the atmosphere would be a lot hotter.
And uh other radiant gases like ozone etc. Its a complex issue that nobody is trying to figure out because they don’t want to. The hog troughs got filled with slop and its full time grazing with the nose in the trough.
“If it werent for water and CO2 the atmosphere would be a lot hotter.”
Got any legit sources to support that ridiculous declaration??
Of course not.
Nate says:
”If it werent for water and CO2 the atmosphere would be a lot hotter.”
Got any legit sources to support that ridiculous declaration??
Of course not.
————————-
Does one actually need a source for something so basic?
Bottom line is without an atmosphere the earth’s surface would go from close to 400k to 90k each day as does the moon.
Put in an atmosphere with no GHG exactly how does 400K air moving by convection away from the surface cool substantially during the night? Fact is convection is an opportunistic means of cooling the surface. It will cool it but the heat is going into a container of air from which it has very limited means of cooling. Add in GHG and you now have a far better means of cooling. Use your own logic you use for the insulating effect of the atmosphere and realize that with greenhouse gases your insulation is being reduced.
The entire climate change argument is based upon the same logic except for recognition that the mean temperature of the surface is higher with GHG.
Heat isn’t being manufactured in this process as it is with the 3rd grader radiation model. Its just in different containers and the net difference if any isn’t even known. So since scientists can’t seem to wrap their head around that; they limit the comparison of our current earth to one with zero atmosphere.
And then to compound the error they assume that albedo would be the same as current earth.
After which they ignore they ignore the Stefan Boltzmann equation emissivity parameter and offer it up as 1.0 as a blackbody.
Then of course they conjure up an answer as to how much more CO2 will warm the surface and they can’t agree on that beyond its somewhere between 1.5C to 12.0C by selecting who weighs in on the topic . . .ignoring the dissenting voices of scientists not compliant with the group think of the benefitting institutions.
Lets hear your argument for why the atmosphere would be colder.
BH,
First…The moon’s average temperature is 200 K or about 90 K lower than that of Earth’s average temperature. [Williams et al. 2017 DOI:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.08.012]
Second…CO2 and H2O impede the transmission of radiant energy and the 1LOT has yet to be proven false. Those two unequivocal facts necessarily mean that the atmosphere must be warmer with them than without them. It is literally that simple and is as settled as anything in science can be settled.
bdgwx, and you claim there is no other way for the atmosphere to warm than radiation from the surface right? If not then how does your conclusion follow from your premises?
BH said: you claim there is no other way for the atmosphere to warm than radiation from the surface right?
I said no such thing.
Well if you aren’t implying that then how can you be sure the atmosphere wasn’t warmer than the surface before greenhouse gases were introduced?
“Does one actually need a source for something so basic?”
Yes. When it is made up nonsense.
it is basic. without greenhouse gases it will always be the hottest gases that get trapped in the atmosphere as convection will draw the cooler gases back to the surface for warming.
and the hottest gases are recorded as 57C.
Nate driving out in a blizzard comes across a man in short sleeves and shorts shivering like crazy. Nate waves to him and tells him that since he is cold he is losing less heat by being cold and will be fine and that lesser loss of heat will surely warm him up shortly.
Interesting!
Ball4 has an answer to the question. Did you just make that up or do you have a source?
“it is basic. without greenhouse gases it will always be the hottest gases that get trapped in the atmosphere as convection will draw the cooler gases back to the surface for warming.”
Huh? trapped in the atmosphere?
Still nonsense, and still no source.
Convection only occurs because GHG are cooling the atmosphere Nate. If the atmosphere reaches a uniform temperature there would be no convection as for convection to occur the gases near the surface would need to be warmed to a warmer temperature than the gases above. There is a limit to how long that would go before the gases above are as warm as the gases below. So as it is convection is only identified as occurring a few hours a day starting in the morning into the afternoon until the surface starts cooling. Of course diffusion operates all the time at a much slower pace as that is how lighter molecules like CO2 become evenly distributed in the atmosphere.
“Convection only occurs because GHG are cooling the atmosphere.”
There is global nil convection in the lower stratosphere for about 9km of height above the tropopause where added GHGs really are cooling that part of the atm. proving Bill wrong.
The rest of Bill’s 3:06 pm comment thus falls apart.
Ball4 says:
”There is global nil convection in the lower stratosphere for about 9km of height above the tropopause where added GHGs really are cooling that part of the atm. proving Bill wrong.”
well you will have proven me wrong but only after your sourceless declarative statement above is proven right. right now it appears that stratospheric temperature changes are believed to be related to disturbance waves from the polar vortex. Another way for the stratosphere to cool is for ozone to thin out and stop absorbing incoming UV, actually creating some convection through the stratosphere.
“Convection only occurs because GHG are cooling the atmosphere Nate.”
Yes. And yet Nature finds a way to cool the Earth, Bill. But you seem to forget it.
With surface temp @ 288. And emissivity 0.95, as observed. The surface now radiates direct to space. MORE than 240 W/m2 as it previously did.
It ends up cooler.
nate just drivels out as fact whatever his daddy told him to say.
And if the earth’s surface previously emitted 240w/m2 its 100% coincidental.
Fact is the earth’s surface is not made up of clouds. the only way for snow to fall is for the earth to have an atmosphere with GHG in it. The idea of any certainty at all that the earth’s surface once emitted 240w/m2 is ridiculous as rock, oceans, sand, and grass would have to have the emissivity of clouds.
You are so hopelessly screwed up on science topics Nate its ridiculous. You might have a science education but you sure has heck wouldn’t pass a good science comprehension examination.
Without GHG, the planet radiates MORE IR energy to space, and COOLS, opposite to what you claimed.
And you offer nothing quantitative to dispute that, just hand-waving assertions.
And as usual, when you have no answers, your ad-hom intensity increases.
to put it another way due to the uncertainties surrounding mean global atmospheric emissivity from TOA (an equally nebulous altitude), one cannot divine what the actual radiant temperature is.
However, if we look to science that has been made available to me. . . I will go with Stefan Boltzmann greybody calculation until somebody proves that Stefan Boltzmann should not be applied to TOA.
That gives us a greenhouse effect of 9C rather than 33C. Maybe you have a good source showing how Stefan Boltzmann does not apply?
And gee Nate. If you go with 3degrees/doubling of CO2 and a 33degree GHE; that means 11 doublings in total.
So if CO2 is impotent at driving water vapor and resulting feedbacks from water vapor then you 9 degrees divide by 11 for eleven doublings you get 0.8C per doubling. Then if you find that CO2 only has a primary effect and no longterm feedbacks you get 0.27C/doubling.
Thats makes a range well within the negative feedback found by Roy.
My own opinion is if the institutions wanted to learn about natural climate change they could if they wanted to repurpose the funding they are getting for climate science and climate response.
But that really doesn’t fit with the leave no child behind, Title 9, and spreading all revenues across all the disciplines. Right?
Just sayin! I mean institutions build creds on more than one discipline.
“That gives us a greenhouse effect of 9C rather than 33C. ”
Then you agree that GHG result in warming the Earth, as opposed to your original assertion that they Cool the Earth.
My work here is done.
Nope you just made the mistaken assumption that the greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gases. I realize you can’t see that nuance. Not surprising since you can’t see that the 1940’s neither stopped the LIA recovery nor has been identified as being part of it.
phil j…I think Christos realizes that. What he is talking about is the warming effect produced by an atmosphere as opposed to a planet, like the Moon, with no atmosphere.
Christos is not taking about the atmosphere warming the surface through back-radiation, which contradicts the 2nd law, he is talking more about air molecules retaining heat absorbed from the surface via conduction/convection.
The alarmist theory is that trace GHGs in the atmosphere are warming the atmosphere some 33C over a planet without an atmosphere and oceans. Christos claims it is closer to 4C.
At least, that’s how I understand his comment, having experienced many of his posts in the past.
Hello Gordon,
“What he is talking about is the warming effect produced by an atmosphere as opposed to a planet, like the Moon, with no atmosphere.”
There is no ‘warming effect’ from the atmosphere. the surface warms the atmosphere, not the reverse.
A planet, like the Moon or Mercury that no longer has an atmosphere is much further along in its cooling than one still retaining an atmosphere.
The ’33C’ number for Earth and whatever number used for other bodies based on insolation for a BB is the limit a planetary body will COOL TO given enough time and all else being equal..
phil…”There is no warming effect from the atmosphere. the surface warms the atmosphere, not the reverse”.
***
There most definitely is a warming effect from the atmosphere but it’s the entire atmosphere, not just a trace gas. The entire atmosphere absorbs heat directly from the surface and cannot get rid of it since nitrogen and oxygen don’t radiate well at terrestrial temperatures and need to rise to higher altitudes to dissipate the heat. Anyone living at lower altitudes down to sea level are warmed by that air.
It’s the back-radiation theory that is the basis of the GHE/AGW theory that is wrong. GHGs heated by surface radiation cannot radiate back to the surface to raise the temperature of the surface. That’s why the energy budget is so screwed, it completely disregards the 2nd law.
If you walk outside on a hot summer’s day, you are feeling largely the effect of the atmosphere if you are in the shade.
We in the northern climes, in coastal cities like Vancouver, Canada, are warmed by wind and ocean currents from the Tropics all year round. We’ve had heat waves locally in recent years, the most recent in May, a normally coolish month here. That heat had to come from somewhere.
A heat dome a couple of summers ago parked itself over a 500 mile area from Oregon in the US to mid-way through British Columbia. It just sat there for a month, night and day, without moving. That was atmospheric warming, yet outside the dome, temperatures were normal.
Hello Gordon,
“. The entire atmosphere absorbs heat directly from the surface ”
Indeed, the surface warms the atmosphere, not the reverse..
A high pressure system such as the heat dome you mentioned may slow convection and thus the rate the surface cools, but slower cooling is not warming..
“Thus the rate the surface cools, but slower cooling is not warming.”
It results in warming. Same as closing the oven door results in it getting hotter.
Nate says:
”Thus the rate the surface cools, but slower cooling is not warming.”
It results in warming. Same as closing the oven door results in it getting hotter.
———————
no it clearly is not the same Nate.
slowing cooling is but one property of insulation. oven doors also serve as solid barriers to heat transport by convection which is equal to more capable of cooling the surface than radiation is within a gaseous atmosphere. try a different argument.
“slowing cooling is but one property of insulation. oven doors also serve as solid barriers to heat transport by convection”
IOW insulation!
“which is equal to more capable of cooling the surface than radiation is within a gaseous atmosphere. try a different argument.”
Which is unsupported gobbledegook.
nate now is in denial that convection exceeds the cooling of the surface by radiation. Earth to nate! come in please!
It is your usual red herring, that ignores the key fact that radiation is the ONLY mechanism for Earth to emit heat to space, and thus cool itself.
Apples vs Oranges Nate we are talking about the surface cooling and heating the atmosphere. Fortunately ghg are there to cool the atmosphere. Imagine what would happen if the atmosphere could not cool to space. . . .that would have the maximum effect of reducing emissions to space. . .and the only way for that to happen is for there to be zero greenhouse gases. The entire logic of the AGW science community is built on a house of cards. The start with the ”Present King of France” in playing with definitions about how we measure our climate temperature (its the near surface atmosphere not the surface) and from that illogic they build a theory that makes no sense and when put to the 3rd grader radiation theory test it fails.
So the entire theory is gibberish. You take gibberish and encode it in models and force the results with the illogic above what you have done is create garbage in and garbage out.
“Imagine what would happen if the atmosphere could not cool to space.”
There would be no sunshine on Earth as the sun could not cool to space either. The rest of Bill’s comment falls apart accordingly.
“So the entire theory is gibberish.”
Sure, to the science illiterate.
Vournas
” The +1,5 oC rise is due to orbital forcing… ”
Now you start lying, because you have been shown several times that we are not at all in any warming orbital phase, as all three Milankovitch cycles show that we are in their middle.
Why can’t you stop your little manipulations?
You are doing here the same as with the lunar spin which is visible in all your oldest posts but deny since a while, probably in order to get on par with the GHE den~iers who ‘by accident’ de~ny the lunar spin as well, he he.
.
Thank you, Bindidon.
Now lets see:
Earths and Moons orbital period around sun is
365,25 days
Lunar diurnal cycle period is
29,53 days
Lunar sidereal period in reference to the stars is
27,32 days
Lunar orbital period around Earth is
27,32 days
*****
Lets have the rates:
Moon revolves in reference to the sun
1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day
Moons diurnal cycle rate is
1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day
Moons sidereal period rate is
1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot/day
*****
(1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot/day) = (1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day) + (1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day)
Lets do the (1 /365,25 + 1 /29,53)
1 /365,25 = 0,002737850 rot/day
1 /29,53 = 0,033863867 rot/day
============0,036601717 rot /day = 1 /27,3211
1 /27,32 = 0,036603221 rot /day = it is Moons sidereal period rate!
*****
There is not any Moons rotational rate (rot /day) about Moons local axis.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You are forgetting that the Moon’s orbit is not circular.
Since the Moon’s orbit is an ellipse, the time between Full Moons is not a constant. The value given for the Lunar diurnal cycle period is an average over a year.
The Moon rotates once an orbit, with the sidereal period.
Sorry Swanson, but you’re just making crap up, again,
You don’t have a viable model of “orbital motion without spin”, so you don’t even know what orbiting is.
Maybe we can explain it to you when. you grow up….
Hey, Pupman.
No idea why you’d bait once more. Here’s a model: an orbit.
There you go. You can thank me later.
So, to recap again: the following issues are settled and correct, regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue:
1) A ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis. It is instead rotating about a central axis, located at the other end of the string. As Little Willy put it: "what we can’t do is to pretend that one motion is actually two independent ones when mechanically they’re not."
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion (sorry, Tim) and it is motion as per the “moon on the left” in the below GIF (not the MOTR). Don’t forget that nobody is saying the motion of the MOTL can’t be described in another way: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
3) The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames (sorry, Ball4). Don’t forget that this has a specific meaning, which I have outlined numerous times.
4) “Orbit” and “spin” are independent motions, as shown in the following video: https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?si=TOKFBw-1q7tw9Ak7
The above four points are now (as before) beyond debate. They’re settled. Once every "Spinner" agrees, we can move on to discussing whether "orbit without spin" really is like the MOTL or the MOTR. Until then, we wait for "Spinner" to argue against "Spinner" until all are in agreement on the four points.
We see the usual members of the “No Spin” cult responding to my post. grammie clone claims I’m making things up and grammie just repeats his usual non-sense. So, for you cult members, here’s my data and the source.
https://app.box.com/s/zb9pofqkrh5m1ngettt7xccsvjx47n6k
…and, my points 1) – 4) remain correct, regardless.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1555386
Astute readers await with bated breath our ball-on-stringers’ model a comet’s orbit.
You will receive a response to your linked comment tomorrow, Little Willy, as you know. As for the orbit of a comet, I’m afraid that is outside the scope of my points 1) – 4), which remain correct regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue.
Child Swanson has no viable model of “orbital motion without spin”, so he has to make crap up.
Now he’s collecting Moon orbital data because he believes that “proves” Moon is spinning!
Poor child. If Moon were spinning we would see all sides of it from Earth.
Gaslighting Graham gets confused by the levels of description of his own pet toys, fails an elementary logic litmus test, and fumbles over a simple homomorphism. All this because he still has to realize that objects spin, orbits don’t.
No wonder Mighty Tim stopped bothering and Bob only uses Moon Dragon cranks as a scratching post.
All wrong, Little Willy.
Since Gaslighting Graham has no further argument, astute readers will appreciate the First Law of Motion (FLOM):
(FLOM) A body remains in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.
Another silly abbreviation, just like Gaslighting Graham like them!
The world awaits the Sky Dragon cranks to reveal the secret force that turns the Moon into a ball on string!
We’re strictly on points 1) – 4), Little Willy.
The “No Spin” cult continues to spew their usual non-sense, as if repeating it over and over makes it true. For example the “csaitruth” video animation is pure crap. His “moon” is attached to an arm, so that the motion of it’s center is always around a circle. Orbits are ellipses, of which a circle is a special case, which does not pertain to the Moon. Tidal locking is a special case, but a moon being so constrained does not imply that one observes the exact same side at each full moon as that moon orbits.
For our Moon, the effects of the elliptical orbit are demonstrated by the differences in period between successive Full Moons, as I pointed out. For our Moon, it’s rotation exhibits a constant rate of once per orbit, but that does not prove that it’s rotating about an external point, which the “No Spin” cult claims.
Gaslighting Graham pretends he’s the Topic Master in a subthread kicked off by Pupman’s baiting.
Sorry, Swanson, “elliptical orbits” are outside the scope of points 1) – 4). Once you, and all “Spinners”, have agreed that points 1) – 4) are correct, then the discussion can move on to such matters. Start with 1), and tell me if you agree with it, or disagree, and why.
If the children had a valid, viable model of “orbital motion without spin”, they wouldn’t have to continually throw their crap against the wall.
But, they’ve got NOTHING.
E. Swanson says:
csaitruth video animation is pure crap. His moon is attached to an arm, so that the motion of its center is always around a circle. Orbits are ellipses, of which a circle is a special case, which does not pertain to the Moon.
Tidal locking is a special case, but a moon being so constrained does not imply that one observes the exact same side at each full moon as that moon orbits.
—————–
Actually elliptical orbits is proof that rotations on external axes includes elliptical motion as well as the circular motion of circular orbits. If a moon is in a circular orbit you acknowledge it meets the requirements of a rotation on an external axis.
So you need to explain two things to make your case.
1) if an object is in a circular orbit and it receives an acceleration from a force dead center on the orbital line accelerating the moon increasing its velocity and angular momentum. Why does the axis change from the planet the moon is orbiting to the center of the moon and what kind of physics causes this shift?
2) if an object is resting on the surface of the earth it is viewed by all as rotating around the center of the earth. If it receives a vertical boost and begins to orbit why is the angular momentum associated with the objects rotation around the center of the earth move to the center of the object?
A concise answer to both those question would be a good way to make your case. Ignoring the questions as has been the pattern just shows your unwillingness to intelligently discuss the matter. . .meaning of course winning an argument is more important to you than advancing science.
An orbit isn’t a thing that spin, Pupman. Besides:
(FLOM) A body remains in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.
That’s better than a model.
> Actually elliptical orbits is proof that rotations on external axes includes elliptical motion as well as the circular motion of circular orbits.
Actually, Gill, circles are ellipses, but ellipses are not all circles.
Grammie wrote:
Actually, my reply to CV was about the Moon and it’s orbital motion. Since your 4 red herrings have nothing to do with the Moon’s real motions, there’s no reply required.
And grammie clone’s demand for a model of his special case ignores the fact that the same mathematical description of a body’s motion as orbiting translation of it’s CG and rotation about an axis thru said CG can be applied to his special case, given the appropriate description. Of course, one would need to understand and accept that said math model would be structured using inertial reference frames, etc.
There is never any reply “required” by anyone, Swanson, I just thought you might like to weigh in on those issues, since your fellow “Spinners” have spent tens of thousands of comments arguing with “Non-Spinners” about them over several years. There is at least one “Spinner” in agreement on each of the four points, though no one “Spinner” agrees on all four at once, as far as I know. You might be the first. Of course, “Spinner” has never argued against “Spinner”, despite their many disagreements with each other over the 1) – 4).
Swanson now rambles incoherently.
If the children had a valid, viable model of “orbital motion without spin”, they wouldn’t have to continually throw their crap against the wall.
But, they’ve got NOTHING.
“Once you, and all Spinners, have agreed that points 1) 4) are correct, then the discussion can move on to such matters. ”
Good, nobody agrees, so might as well pack up and go home. Glad that is settled.
Ah, I see Nate commented. I don’t read his comments any more, but back when I did, I know he agreed on point 2). So, anyone disagreeing on 2) can argue that out with Nate.
“1) if an object is in a circular orbit and it receives an acceleration from a force dead center on the orbital line accelerating the moon increasing its velocity and angular momentum. Why does the axis change from the planet the moon”
The axis is placed where it is most convenient to describe and understand the motion.
For an independent body in orbit, its ORBIT describes where it is in 3D space, as a function of time. With the ORBIT, one can answer the question:
‘Where is the Moon tonight at midnight GMT?’ wrt to the stars. Or where is it wrt observers on Earth?
And from the POV of physics, the COM is where gravity is acting on orbiting bodies.
From the Orbit, one can predict eclipses in the distant future.
And of course its Orbit, where it is in space, is defined by where is its Center of Mass.
Then, rotation is an independent motion, determined conveniently in reference to an axis thru the COM, since it is an independent body whose COM motion has been determined.
Astronomers, astrophysicists, and engineers have found this to be the most convenient way to describe orbital motions.
Thus, you will have a very hard time convincing them of an urgent need to change it.
Nate demonstrates that he has NOTHING.
Clint has no response. Responds anyway.
"Nate demonstrates that he has NOTHING."
Well, nothing except agreement on point 2), and presumably point 4), as well. I can’t imagine many "Spinners" disagreeing with the idea that "orbit" and "spin" are independent motions.
Exactly, Nate.
…and we already know from previous discussions that Little Willy agrees on points 2) and 3).
He also agrees that "orbit" and "spin" are independent motions, but for some reason can’t see that they’re independent motions with the CSAItruth equipment. That’s what he’s currently struggling with over on the other thread.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1555697
Exactly as I said, Little Willy: astute readers can see that you are struggling with that very, very basic concept over on the other thread.
“”Nate demonstrates that he has NOTHING.”
Well, nothing except agreement on point ”
Ha!
Since DREMTY doesnt read my posts, he cannot know what is, or is not in it.
Astute readers rather realized a long time ago that the arm of the CSA Truther’s clock displaces and changes the orientation of the Moon at the end of the arm at the same time.
Gaslighting Graham would rather gaslight instead of accepting a fact that he touted elsewhere as a benefit of the Moon Dragon cranks approach to FLOM.
Your confusion on that issue will be dealt with in the response you will receive tomorrow, over on that other thread, Little Willy.
Nate says:
”The axis is placed where it is most convenient to describe and understand the motion.”
Reality isn’t reality its merely how simple minds can better understand it. Indeed Newton did provide that service to his lessers.
Also notice how Nate mentions 1 of 2 challenges but doesn’t attempt to give an answer to either beyond stomping its foot and claiming its more convenient.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”And from the POV of physics, the COM is where gravity is acting on orbiting bodies.”
Only for the simple minded that believes that gravity doesn’t act on particles of the moon but actually believes the statistical mean is the reality of what gravity physically works on. Sheeesh!! Like they have the same problem with insulation and what it is. All it is is a major lack in actual experience.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”From the Orbit, one can predict eclipses in the distant future.
And of course its Orbit, where it is in space, is defined by where is its Center of Mass.”
The real question here is can an object orbit without any force on its individual particles applying torque to the moon. Of course the answer is no, thus one can conclude the separation of orbit and spin within a rotation on an external axis is impossible and an unreal conceptualization that confuses spinners to no end.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Then, rotation is an independent motion, determined conveniently in reference to an axis thru the COM, since it is an independent body whose COM motion has been determined.”
That would be correct if you subtituted one letter and said ”notion” instead of ”motion”.
Thus you are answering my 2nd challenge by claiming that the COM about which the moon rotates is determined by convenience and simplicity of notion as opposed to a physical reality. Interesting way of looking at the world, probably explains the tendency of liberals to be idealists wanting to socially shape the world in their own image as if they were God. Perhaps all you need is a little humility.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
Astronomers, astrophysicists, and engineers have found this to be the most convenient way to describe orbital motions.
Thus, you will have a very hard time convincing them of an urgent need to change it.
————————-
Nobody I am aware of here has suggested they change their notions about how to deal with astronomers and astrophysicists. They don’t need to understand reality because they don’t create new stuff. Engineers on the other hand have already made the transition and accept what a rotation on an external axis is to the extent they can create such an axis.
Talking about a lack of vision.
> Indeed Newton did provide that service to his lessers.
Preach, Gill:
(FLOM) A body remains in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.
Tell me more about the “orbit without spin” you’re supposed to have difficulty finding.
As DREMT has pointed out countless times. An orbit without a spin is as the MOTL. Though DREMT and myself have acknowledged many many times that for the sake of convenience its OK to think of them independently even if they are not.
By “pointed out” you must mean “asserted ad lib,” Gill. The ROOMBA disagrees with both of you. Gaslighting Graham may disagree about that dependency. You should check out T1 & T2 with him.
By ROOMBA, Little Willy is mocking something that he actually fully agrees with, the concept of objective physical reality, OPR. He believes that the moon spins, as he puts it, “for real”. Thus he disagrees with those who say that the moon spins wrt an inertial reference frame and does not spin wrt a non-inertial reference frame, and tacitly agrees with my point 3). Great…except he’s got it wrong about the moon.
Little by little, though, he’s making progress towards understanding and agreeing with each of the four points. Really, he should understand by now the OPR is that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis, since it’s being swung around on the end of a string, which constrains its motion and prevents it from doing so. He contradicts himself by asserting that it can be both spinning and not spinning, since:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, and
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis
are geometrically equivalent. He should really get that to solve this problem you need physics as well as geometry. Once he does so, he might be agreeing to point 1) as well.
By ROOMBA, I’m mocking two things.
First, Gaslighting Graham’s recurring acronyms he never introduces properly that end up being more cumbersome than simply talking about the (actual, virtual) motion of the Moon. With them he often passes ideas that would not hold up when expressed plainly.
Second, his constant confusion between levels of description. ROOMBA refers to the real world, in which the Moon is said to spin. By his silly acronym, he’s referring to the material conditions by which the CSA Truther’s contraption works in his video, which means he’s basically confusing model and reality. A model remains a model even if it’s not a virtual one.
With my acronyms (ROOMBA, TMDNS, FLOM, and others), I’m also trying to show him ways to improve his mnemotechnics
His silliness does not end there. Our Ball-on-Spinner is trying to argue both that two descriptions are equivalent and that one is better than the other. He also claims that an external translation is *one* transformation, but that it preserves independence between orbit and spin. If not between change of orientation and displacement, at least the way *he* defines them.
And to top it all we still don’t have the two forces behind that external rotation!
“By his silly acronym, he’s referring to the material conditions by which the CSA Truther’s contraption works in his video”
Incorrect. You’re just obsessed with that equipment. The objective physical reality is “the real world”, as you put it. It means exactly the same thing as your “ROOMBA”. So it applies to the CSAItruth equipment, the XY plotter equipment, the ball on a string, a Ferris wheel, a bicycle pedal, a wooden horse on a merry-go-round, our moon, everything in reality.
“Our Ball-on-Spinner is trying to argue both that two descriptions are equivalent and that one is better than the other.”
Incorrect. I’m arguing that two geometric descriptions may be equivalent, but the OPR is that an object cannot be both spinning and not spinning at the same time. I’m separating geometry from physics. You should try it.
“He also claims that an external [axis rotation] is *one* transformation, but that it preserves independence between orbit and spin”
Your eternal confusion on this issue will be dealt with on the other thread, as repeatedly explained.
“astronomers and astrophysicists. They dont need to understand reality because they dont create new stuff.”
What rot.
“Engineers on the other hand have already made the transition and accept what a rotation on an external axis is to the extent they can create such an axis.”
Bullshit.
> Ball-on-Spinner
Ball-on-Stringer. Damn. Even my autocorrect drank the kohl-aid.
Every time Gaslighting Graham goes for a quote fest he provides a tell. It would make more sense in an oral debate, as it throws many diversions at the same time. In written form, with time to address each squirrel by order of importance, it only makes the task easier.
Astute readers can spot the empty rebuttals and the non-responses. The lies take a little more time. But not that much – Gaslighting Graham keeps repeating himself, so it is not that hard to find when he misrepresents what he himself says.
Let them work on it for a short while.
A total non-response from Little Willy. Any time I include a couple of quotes he loses the ability to debate, apparently. So, instead, he just insults and falsely accuses.
“Really, he should understand by now the OPR is that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis”
Gee, a previous DREMT seemed to understand very well that motion, like the MOTL, which is exactly the motion of a ball on a string, could be described in at least two ways, one of which included internal axis rotation.
But now, an apparently different DREMT, suggests that only one of these ways of describing the motion is actually objective reality!
At some point there’s little one can do about Gaslighting Graham’s gaslighting. I say that the ROOMBA refers to the Moon, not the contraption or his other models:
[ME, A PATZER] By his silly acronym, hes referring to the material conditions by which the CSA Truthers contraption works in his video, which means hes basically confusing model and reality. A model remains a model even if its not a virtual one.
What does he understand? That it includes everything:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, A GRANDMASTER] Incorrect. The objective physical reality is the real world, as you put it. It means exactly the same thing as your ROOMBA. So it applies to the CSAItruth equipment, the XY plotter equipment, the ball on a string, a Ferris wheel, a bicycle pedal, a wooden horse on a merry-go-round, our moon, everything in reality.
Is it so hard to understand that a contraption that models the motion of the Moon is only a model of the Moon, even if it is a “real” toy model? Certainly not someone who would keep saying that a ball-on-string is only a model!
Here’s a little trick. When I speak of the Moon, its spin or its orbit, I am referring to ROOMBA. These are concepts that belong to the material mode of speech. When I speak of its models, of transformations like translation and rotation, I am not. These concepts belong to the formal mode of speech.
So Gaslighting Graham once again tries to tell me how I understand things. Pure gaslighting. Even if the CSA Truther’s contraption is made of real stuff, it’s not a real Moon, it does not implement how the Moon spins or orbits.
It’s just a toy.
Just like Moon Dragon Cranks Master Argument, come to think of it. It simulates an argument. Astute readers know by now that it’s not a real one.
Another long comment from Little Willy, essentially devoid of any substance. Apparently he thinks only the motion of the moon can be objectively “real”. He can’t look at, say, the motion of a ball on a string and decide whether it is rotating on its own internal axis, or not. Amazing.
More gaslighting by Gaslighting Graham.
The motion of the Moon is the reality we want to model.
A model is a model, whether it’s a program, a contraption, or a thought experiment.
See what I mean? I could ask Little Willy for the rest of my life about the ball on a string. He will never give a straight answer.
Astute readers see what I mean when I say that Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting.
I tell him that my ROOMBA isn’t his “OPR” I had to check once again.
He responds that it’s the same.
I show him quotes that prove him wrong.
He taunts.
I explain how he’s wrong, and why it matters.
He deflects.
All this to escape FLOM.
Sad, really.
If your ROOMBA is not the OPR then your ROOMBA is…meaningless.
It shouldn’t only apply to the moon.
A ball on a string is a real object, with a real motion.
Completely forget about the moon for a minute. Just think about the ball on a string. Don’t think of it as a model of anything, just think of it as an object in its own right. If you cannot give me an answer on whether it is rotating on its own internal axis or not, then what good is your ROOMBA?
It’s of no use to anybody. No use to physics. No use to trying to understand the world around us.
The OPR, on the other hand, is quite simple, and useful. The ball cannot rotate on its own internal axis, because it is "held in place" by the string. See how easy that was?
“Its of no use to anybody. No use to physics. No use to trying to understand the world around us.”
If we’re going by that standard, then ‘The Moon does not Spin’, TMDNS, model is of no use to anybody, since no astronomer, physicist, or engineer has any use for it.
The objective physical reality, OPR, is that the TMDNS model is only used to diminish science, which has been the most effective way to understand the world around us.
Nate chimes in again. I wonder if he would ever be able to give a simple, straight answer as to whether a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis, or not? Not that I’d read it if he did, but I doubt he would, anyway.
He would probably just point out that according to the geometry, it can be described as:
a) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
He would never actually go beyond that geometry, into the simple mechanics of the ball on a string, to just give a definitive answer either way. His "physics" appears not to be very useful. Well, it certainly didn’t appear to be very useful back when I was reading his comments, anyway. Whether that’s changed, or not, I guess I’ll never know.
As I noted, the old DREMT agreed that there are two ways to describe the ball on the strings motion.
I would simply point out the mathematical models for motion are not ‘physical reality’.
They are simply useful models to help humans predict, with the help of physics, what motion will occur.
Such as predicting that if the (thin) string broke, the ball would translate linearly and spin on its axis, and no additional forces or torques would be required to create that axial spin.
One could understand this most easily with a model that the axial spin already existed, and the ball had spin angular momentum, and it was conserved after the string broke.
What did Nate say, Bill? Did he give a straight answer?
Poor low energy DREMT, can’t even move his eyes up an inch or two.
Next, he’ll probably need someone to wipe his bottom. Any volunteers?
Gaslighting Graham persists on conflating model and reality:
The “reality” of that motion is never really explored by Sky Dragon cranks. How long is the string? What kind of attachment is there on the ball? How heavy is the ball? How strong is the swinger? Do we count the motion as starting at rest? What happens when we cut the string?
They never tell.
Why? Because they only use it to illustrate external rotation without internal rotation {1}. Physics teachers don’t use that example to make a mere geometry point, but to explain circular motion with tension, e.g.:
https://youtu.be/kEYlueoSVZk?si=6Fo45SvsiBRT-8_o
The ball is just drawn on the blackboard most of the times. It’s not the “reality” of the ball that matters, but the forces it helps represents. Physicists use the ball of string as a model to simulate the theory the motion of objects in general.
This is the ROOMBA level. It can be applied to the Moon, just as it can be applied to every object of the universe. This is where FLOM applies. This is the level Gaslighting Graham keeps trying to ignore with his gaslighting.
{1} Unless Gaslighting Graham wishes to pull Nate’s leg, in which case he invokes physics, but without ever exploring that question himself.
Little Willy is mostly just emitting his usual verbal diarrhoea, but he does manage to spew:
"What happens when we cut the string?"
That old chestnut. Sure, when you cut the string, the ball flies off at a tangent, in a straight line, rotating on its own internal axis as it does so. However, that does not mean the ball is rotating on its own internal axis before you cut the string. As Tesla explained:
"The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different."
Those tangential velocities are different because the ball is rotating about an external axis (and not on its own internal axis) prior to the string being cut.
Simple, really.
The objective physical reality for the ball on a string is that it is not rotating on its own internal axis. It’s physically incapable of doing so, when swung around.
That’s that.
“The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.”
Very profound… Different tagential velocities of parts of a rigid body is a measure of rotation!
Thus he is saying that rotation is not due to angular motion ( rotation) but due to measurable rotation!
Just endless silliness…
How does a distant astronmer measure rotation of a body? The light from one side of the body is red shifted and the other side blue shifted, thus indicating different velocities. See Doppler effect.
And this effect looks the same for bodies in orbit or flying freely!
Because rotation is rotation in both situations.
That old chestnut. Sure, when you cut the string, the ball flies off at a tangent, in a straight line, rotating on its own internal axis as it does so. However, that does not mean the ball is rotating on its own internal axis before you cut the string. As Tesla explained:
"The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different."
Those tangential velocities are different because the ball is rotating about an external axis (and not on its own internal axis) prior to the string being cut.
Simple, really.
The objective physical reality for the ball on a string is that it is not rotating on its own internal axis. It’s physically incapable of doing so, when swung around.
That’s that.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
It’s really not that hard to see that the ball on the string changes its orientation wrt its own center. And…that’s that.
Ball-on-stringers are only using the ball on the string to illustrate Fact 1:
Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees.
They don’t need to invoke a ball on string at all to say that.
I briefly thought DREMT had the intellectual sophistication to be able to understand this:
“I would simply point out the mathematical models for motion are not physical reality.”
Oh well!
"It’s really not that hard to see that the ball on the string changes its orientation wrt its own center. And…that’s that."
A change of orientation does not equal internal axis rotation. As you know, and have already agreed.
"Ball-on-stringers are only using the ball on the string to illustrate Fact 1:"
No, Little Willy. That’s not why we "invoke" a ball on a string. But, it’s nice to see you repeatedly agreeing with my point 2). Please continue.
A ball on a string is a model of "orbit without spin". That’s why it’s usually "invoked". Not in this case, however. All I’m doing at the moment is treating the ball on a string as a real object, with a real motion…the objective physical reality of which is that it’s not rotating on its own internal axis.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”What did Nate say, Bill? Did he give a straight answer?”
Straight answer? No!
But he did agree that you are right in being able to perceive it two different ways. But he avoided any argument at all on the true physical reality which has been the main topic of this discussion for a long time.
At least Nate sometimes realizes he has no physical argument until you press him. So you get the above response.
Then when pressed he will once again regress to coverup mode and making a lot of irrelevant observations. . .like gee the moon’s orbit isn’t perfectly circular. He will then back away from that one on the topic of giving a physical reason why a circular orbit should be different than an elliptical one. And his rationale why your perception is wrong is because it becomes too difficult for him to calculate the moon’s exact position in space with an elliptical orbit.
We have been rotating around this absurd rationale since day one.
Thanks, Bill.
"Straight answer? No!"
No surprises there, then.
"But he did agree that you are right in being able to perceive it two different ways."
Well, that’s progress, I suppose.
"But he avoided any argument at all on the true physical reality which has been the main topic of this discussion for a long time."
That doesn’t surprise me, either. Nate was always like that. Little Willy sort of vaguely begins to understand that we’re interested in the objective physical reality of what’s happening with the moon, but he’s not yet willing to try to think about the OPR for something as simple as the ball on a string. It’s a lot easier to work out the OPR for the ball on a string than it is for the moon!
So it makes sense we should start there, with the ball on a string. Which is why it’s my point 1).
It physically cannot rotate on its own internal axis, because it is constrained by the string. Simple.
> But he did agree that you are right in being able to perceive it two different ways
Funny you say that, Gill, for these days Gaslighting Graham is more into “there’s only one true way” with his ball on string.
Are you a Ball-on-Stringer, by any chance?
No, Little Willy. Nothing has changed in…what…five years now? I’ve not changed my position one iota. There’s two ways you can describe the motion, geometrically. However, as you always, obsessively used to say, over and over and over again, you have to look at the physics, not just the geometry. Physically, the ball on a string cannot both be rotating on its own internal axis, and not rotating on its own internal axis, at the same time. It has to be one or the other.
And, the objective physical reality is that it’s not rotating on its own internal axis.
Gaslighting Graham tries too hard:
This is a geometric fact, not a physical one. Both descriptions are equivalent. Physics can’t beat geometry {1}.
Gaslighting Graham tends to forget that when he’s suggesting that one should be preferred to the other, for instance with his silly ball on string, which is only a model of “orbit without spin” when we understand this expression in a very peculiar way.
Besides, there obviously must be some spin in that model!
At least physically speaking.
{1} Although it can work with a different one.
Little Willy goes back on every single word he ever said on this subject, and now claims that geometry trumps physics!
So, never mind that the ball on a string physically cannot rotate on its own internal axis…now Little Willy is saying, because you can describe it as rotating on its own internal axis, geometrically…that means it physically can rotate on its own internal axis! Amazing. Physical reality just melts away under the laser beam of "descriptive truth".
“And, the objective physical reality is that its not rotating on its own internal axis.”
Clearly DREMT can no longer grasp that given two equivalent ways to describe the motion, neither one is ‘physical reality’.
Our mathematical descriptions of motion are for us, and they are not ‘physical reality’.
Draw a small chalk circle on the floor, towards the edge on one side of a spinning merry-go-round platform.
The OPR is the contents of that chalk circle are not rotating on their own internal axis, just because the merry-go-round platform is spinning.
Anybody who asserts otherwise needs to seek psychiatric help.
Gaslighting Graham is clearly doing physics:
Certainly not geometry.
Another dumb response from Little Willy.
Here we go again, for the umpteenth time
“Sorry, Swanson, elliptical orbits are outside the scope of points 1) 4). Once you, and all Spinners, have agreed that points 1) 4) are correct, then the discussion can move on to such matters. Start with 1), and tell me if you agree with it, or disagree, and why.”
Point 1 is wrong: the ball on a string is changing its orientation, therefore it is rotating on an internal axis. If you mark the ball with an internal arrow halfway from the center to the surface and allow the ball to complete an “orbit” the point of the arrow will describe a circle, indicating rotation.
Point 2 is wrong: as per the caption “Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit Earth.” It is rotating and revolving with about the same period.
Point 3 ignores the fact that the Moon’s motion is observed using reference frames, not using reference frames means you are not observing the Moon. The use of the proper reference frame does resolve the issue.
Point 4: Look the dude in the video can’t count rotations, from 0:50 to 1:30 the Moon actually rotates twice, not the once the dude claims.
If all the “spinners” agreed to points 1 through 4, there would be no more spinners. You are going to have to convince a whole lot of astronomers of your flat earth type theories.
Calling us spinners poisons the well, and I haven’t seen any spinners since 1995, the last Grateful Dead concert I attended.
Claiming all these are settled, ha, who are you, the Pope?
Gaslighting Graham still plays dumb instead of acknowledging the most basic point.
He has no need for a silly ball on string to make the point he is making with it. It is just a silly way to hide his misinterpretation of orbit and spin.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”That doesnt surprise me, either. Nate was always like that.”
Yep all he does is extrapolate from the equations he learned as a child to analyze the motions of the moon. He has never ventured beyond that into a visualization of how you would engineer something like this.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”So it makes sense we should start there, with the ball on a string. Which is why its my point 1).
It physically cannot rotate on its own internal axis, because it is constrained by the string. Simple.”
Indeed. I have thrown in there another conceptualization asking for an explanation for why a rock like the moon resting on surface of the earth would be perceived as rotating every 24 hours around the center of the earth but if elevated above the surface and the rotation around the earth continues because of angular momentum why that rotation would now be transferred to around the center of the rock and a translation around the earth.
Seems they are so married to those equations they can’t at all think outside of the box framed for them by their inculcators.
“Draw a small chalk circle on the floor, towards the edge on one side of a spinning merry-go-round platform.
The OPR is the contents of that chalk circle are not rotating on their own internal axis, just because the merry-go-round platform is spinning.”
Anybody who asserts otherwise needs to seek psychiatric help.”
Yes, here we are again, deja vu any one?
I held my not rotating hole saw against the chalk circle, and now the chalk circle is on the ground below the merry go round.
Neatly cut out of the merry go round.
Because relative to the hole saw, the merry go round and the chalk circle are rotating.
“Indeed. I have thrown in there another conceptualization asking for an explanation for why a rock like the moon resting on surface of the earth would be perceived as rotating every 24 hours around the center of the earth but if elevated above the surface and the rotation around the earth continues because of angular momentum why that rotation would now be transferred to around the center of the rock and a translation around the earth.”
Yes, I saw that. Great argument!
Seems they are so married to those equations they can’t at all think outside of the box framed for them by their inculcators.”
Well, just look at bobdroege. He can’t even admit he’s wrong on point 2), when all the other “Spinners” around him are tacitly agreeing with it as part of the ongoing discussion we’re having! I think I’m just going to have to ignore him, as I know there’s no point trying to talk any sense into him. When he can accept he is wrong about point 2), I might consider engaging with him on the subject again.
“I have thrown in there another conceptualization asking for an explanation for why a rock like the moon resting on surface of the earth would be perceived as rotating every 24 hours around the center of the earth but if elevated above the surface and the rotation around the earth continues because of angular momentum why that rotation would now be transferred to around the center of the rock and a translation around the earth.”
Sounds a lot like the situation of the ball on the string when the string breaks.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556188
DREMT seems happy to have the axis of rotation suddenly transfer from the center, to the COM of the ball, upon the string breaking, without any forces or torques on the ball!
TO him its OPR. Go figure!
For physics it can be understood most most easily with a model that has an existing axial spin, giving the ball spin angular momentum, and this is conserved after the string broke.
Again, no OPR is involved, since these are simply models found to be useful, with physics, for predicting the motion.
DR EMPTY the Pope,
Point two is the caption to your bloody gif.
If I am wrong, then the caption to Wikipedia is wrong.
Yeah, I can’t admit that I am wrong, because I am right.
Then Mahdavi is also wrong, but I don’t think so.
Let’s look at some more of those high speed videos of things coming apart because they are rotating too fast.
That will show them.
2) “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” exists as a motion (sorry, Tim) and it is motion as per the “moon on the left” in the below GIF (not the MOTR). Don’t forget that nobody is saying the motion of the MOTL can’t be described in another way: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
bob, the caption to the GIF doesn’t mention “rotation about an external axis” at all. Which is why it’s irrelevant to point 2). You keep trying the same crap, and failing every time. You can’t learn. Which is why I’m not going to bother to engage with you on this topic unless and until you can admit you were wrong on point 2). You have been wrong on this point since the beginning. You continue to be wrong. Just admit it.
DR EMPTY the Pope
That’s because you are the one being sloppy with your thinking.
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/circular-motion-and-rotational-mechanics/rotation-and-revolution/
A rotation about an external axis when dealing with celestial objects is called revolving or orbiting.
Like I said the gif states the Moon is orbiting at the same period as it rotates around its own axis.
Per Mahdavi, if something is changing its orientation, then it is rotating on its axis.
That’s all you need to know to accept that you are wrong and have been for how long now.
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
“Which is why Im not going to bother to engage with you on this topic unless and until you can admit you were wrong on point 2).”
I’ll bet you can’t resist.
What do you want to wager?
Not taking the bait, bob. When you are ready to admit you’re wrong on 2), just let me know. Until then, I have nothing to discuss with you on the moon issue.
Does Gaslighting Graham really believes that Bob denies Euler’s theorem?
Astute readers would like to know.
Here is a link to bob saying “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the “moon on the right” (MOTR):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548362
He’s wrong. It is motion like the MOTL. As you have tacitly agreed a dozen times over, Little Willy. As Nate has also agreed, in the past, back when I used to read his comments.
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name.
“Not taking the bait, bob.”
You just did.
Here is a comment by Gaslighting Graham that shows that he’s working (let’s be generous) with a made-up definition of orbit:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548372
[LITTLE WILLY] he’s working (let’s be generous) with a made-up definition of orbit
[BOB] A rotation about an external axis when dealing with celestial objects is called revolving or orbiting.
Gaslighting Graham cites a guy who says:
“It is important to understand the difference between rotations and revolutions. When an object turns around an internal axis (like the Earth turns around its axis) it is called a rotation. When an object circles an external axis (like the Earth circles the sun) it is called a revolution.”
You can’t make this up.
bob cited him, not me.
bob thinks “revolution/orbit” is a rotation about an external axis, and thinks “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTR.
Nate thinks “revolution/orbit” is a translation in an ellipse, and thinks “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTL.
Combine bob on orbit and Nate on transformations and you would have the ultimate “Non-Spinner”.
“You couldn’t make this up”.
Gaslighting Graham defines an orbit this way:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1553797
Astute readers might wonder: which is it?
“Orbit without spin” is just a clearer way of saying “orbit”. I explain why, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1553898
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
“bob thinks revolution/orbit is a rotation about an external axis, ”
As usual Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name get things backwards and gaslights for extra measure.
I never said revolution or orbit is a rotation about an external axis. Because it’s not, all orbits are elliptical, while are rotations are circular. Therefor all your bunk about rotations about external axes is just that, bunk.
I said a rotation about an external axis is an orbit or a revolution about another body.
Words are not communitive, if a is b, that does not mean b is a.
You flunked logic is what three little birds told me.
I thought you promised not to engage with me on this subject, but then you call me out.
What an ******
bob lies about what he said, even though we can all plainly read:
“A rotation about an external axis when dealing with celestial objects is called revolving or orbiting.”
This is why he should be ignored.
https://reversedictionary.org/
Note:
[The Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name]
bob thinks revolution/orbit is a rotation about an external axis,
[Bob}
I said a rotation about an external axis is an orbit or a revolution about another body
[Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:]
bob lies about what he said, even though we can all plainly read:
A rotation about an external axis when dealing with celestial objects is called revolving or orbiting.
Those who can think clearly can see the difference and who is lying and who is not.
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name, maybe you can find where I said on this thread that a rotation about an external axis is a circle, while all orbits are ellipses.
So obviously I don’t think an orbit is a rotation about an external axis.
That’s why you continue to gaslight me.
This is truly funny.
https://reversedictionary.org/wordsfor/orbital%20motion%20without%20axial%20rotation
See the third and fourth words.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again:
No, it’s not clearer. And no, it’s nobody’s definition but a few Moon Dragon cranks. It is *not* Bordo’s. It may not be Gill’s.
Astute readers know that the notion of orbit is independent from the notion of spin.
Willard says:
”Astute readers know that the notion of orbit is independent from the notion of spin.”
Only in the universe where ”astute” means ”brain fractured”
bobdroege says:
”Per Mahdavi, if something is changing its orientation, then it is rotating on its axis.”
Yes indeed she does but you missed the part where she said the axis can be external to the object; so your argument completely collapses on that goof.
bobdroege says:
”Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name, maybe you can find where I said on this thread that a rotation about an external axis is a circle, while all orbits are ellipses.
So obviously I dont think an orbit is a rotation about an external axis.
Thats why you continue to gaslight me.”
Thats not a logical argument Bob. And sorry to hear that you are questioning your sanity over all this.
Gill becomes Gaslighting Graham’s gaslighting pardner.
And once again he forgets that circles are ellipses, but not all ellipses are circles.
Little Willy, if I go around saying “orbit” is this, and “orbit” is that, then eventually somebody will say something as per my explanation here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1553898
So I will then have to clarify, “orbit without spin”.
This is only a problem for the truly desperate. Are you truly desperate, Little Willy?
A mystery “Spinner” makes the objectively false statement:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1548362
[MYSTERY “SPINNER”] 1) a ball on a string is rotating on both an internal and an external axis, same as the Earth is doing.
Little Willy knows he is wrong, because he has watched this video:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?si=TOKFBw-1q7tw9Ak7
and has seen, from 0:50 to 1:30, where a model moon is rotated once on its internal axis for every one rotation about an external axis (in the same direction as the external axis rotation), and it is not movement as per a ball on a string.
Will Little Willy admit that the mystery “Spinner” is wrong?
For ball-on-a-tring it is stated that
“And, the objective physical reality (OPR) is that its not rotating on its own internal axis.
Same is said about moon fixed on a rotating arm. Or a chalk circle on a rotating platform. TMDNS!
If that’s the argument they are going with then where does that leave us with the REAL MOON, not attached to anything?
How do we KNOW what its ‘objective physical reality’, OPR, motion is?
Well let’s see, the Moon keeps the same side to us as it orbits. And we know that a SPINNING thing shows us ALL sides.
So….the TMDNS is our conclusion! That is its OPR.
Except, it requires one to be ignorant of the rotating reference frame from which the Moon is being viewed!
A distant observer sees all sides of the Moon! For them, the OPR is that the Moon has SPIN.
Because in the end, it is indeed all about reference frames!
And in the end, our models for motion are not ‘physical reality’.
Presumably Nate was just correcting the mystery “Spinner”, as anybody with integrity would be doing.
No surprise, DREMT gets just about everything wrong.
Could someone confirm if Nate had the integrity to correct the mystery “Spinner”?
Gaslighting Graham gaslights Bob again, and he *still* falls for the CSAI Truther trick!
I was actually trying to keep his name out of it, to spare him the embarrassment, Little Willy. I will assume you agree he is wrong, judging by your previous comments.
More of the same gaslighting by Gaslighting Graham.
Astute readers ought to ask themselves – why does he keep ignoring the question about Euler Theorem?
Either the mystery "Spinner" is correct, or this is correct:
"Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees."
Can’t be both.
“‘Orbit without spin’ is just a clearer way of saying orbit.”
Sure it is.
Just as “walk without chewing gum” is just a clearer way of saying “walk”.
This argument never stops being hilarious!
Gaslighting Graham sees two concepts, finds them equivalent, and declares:
His genius transcends logic.
Both this:
"1) a ball on a string is rotating on both an internal and an external axis, same as the Earth is doing."
and this:
"Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees."
cannot be true. Only the second statement is true.
Outside Dragon Cranks circles, equivalence is “the state or property of being equivalent.”
For Gaslighting Graham, it means “can’t be both.”
The first quoted statement is not equivalent to the second quoted statement.
Either Gaslighting Graham accepts that two claims are equivalent or he accepts that they are incompatible.
Can’t be both.
The first statement is incompatible with the second statement.
The second statement contains two claims, which are equivalent.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights Bob again.
Perhaps he should ask him what he really means.
Perusing Euler’s theorem might help him.
The mystery "Spinner’s" statement is objectively false. There’s nothing in the world that can save it.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting Bob. Perhaps he ignores Euler’s theorem? Astute readers may wonder why his 1-3 are in reverse logical order, and why he decided to join his 4 to them.
Maybe there is an astute reader who can tell the Pop DR EMPTY the first of his name why this statement is incorrect.
“”Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees.”
It has something to do with what orbits are not.
I see Hunter has weighed in but he seems unaware that he is in the thimble weight division and is trying to punch way above his class with little success.
“Yes indeed she does but you missed the part where she said the axis can be external to the object; so your argument completely collapses on that goof.”
Yes, but that means is also has to rotate on an internal axis, it must be rotating on two axes, one external and one internal.
“Thats not a logical argument Bob. And sorry to hear that you are questioning your sanity over all this.”
Explain to me Hunter, what is not a logical argument?
Me, I am sane, and the Moon is rotating on it’s own internal axis.
Little Willy, bob just said your “Fact 1” was incorrect.
[smug grin]
Gaslighting Graham gaslights Bob once again.
Perhaps he should remind him what “the planet” stands for.
bob just said your “Fact 1” was incorrect, Little Willy. You may want to dispute that with him. Just a thought.
Nate says:
Well lets see, the Moon keeps the same side to us as it orbits. And we know that a SPINNING thing shows us ALL sides.
A distant observer sees all sides of the Moon! For them, the OPR is that the Moon has SPIN.
————————
the same is true for a rotation on an external axis if you are at a fixed position outside of the arc of rotation. so your conclusion is not exclusive for ‘spin’. try another argument.
Willard says:
”Gaslighting Graham gaslights Bob once again.”
—————————–
Poor Bob! Bob is questioning his own sanity and now Willard recognizes that to be so too.
Gill gently gaslights Bob again.
Perhaps he could tell me to what does “the planet” refer in
again?
If he wants a hint, all he needs is to ask Gaslighting Graham about the accompanying YT video…
“the same is true for a rotation on an external axis if you are at a fixed position outside of the arc of rotation. so your conclusion is not exclusive for spin. try another argument.”
This fails because all the planets, and the Sun are rotating on external axes.
And rotation on an internal axis is independent of a rotation on an external axis.
But then, can you show me a circular orbit?
It’s weird…if I said that Little Willy was incorrect about something, he would dispute that with me. When bob says Little Willy is incorrect about something, Little Willy doesn’t dispute that with him! Even though Little Willy is right and bob is wrong.
It’s like all the wind has been taken out of his sails.
From your comment, it looks like Nate was bringing up reference frames, Bill?
Anyone thinking reference frames resolve the moon issue still doesn’t understand the moon issue. Even after all this time!
Points 1) – 4) are correct, regardless of who is right, overall, about the moon issue.
Nothing weird in Gaslighting Graham gaslighting Bob again!
I mean, he could revisit the context in which the facts were establised. Perhaps he could read again on Euler’s theorem, as already intimated many times already. Or he could read Bob more closely. That way he’ll realize that the facts I’m talking about are tangential to Bob’s point.
I mean, it’d would not be that hard for him to remind Bob about the CSA Truther’s contraption. But no, to gaslight Bob seems to be his mission in life.
Why are you arguing with me, Little Willy? It’s bob that disputes your “Fact 1”, not me!
In fact, I taught you your “Fact 1” in the first place!
Ingrate.
Why does Gaslighting Graham keep gaslighting when he should be researching Euler’s theorem?
Just for the benefit of any readers, for this statement:
"1) a ball on a string is rotating on both an internal and an external axis, same as the Earth is doing."
to be true, “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” would have to be movement like the MOTR…but if that was the case, then this statement:
"Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees."
would no longer hold.
willard continues to blame DREMT for his self-doubt about his own sanity. its ok willard we have a nice snowflake safe place for you in California.
Readers might appreciate Bob’s demolition of the CSA Truther’s argument:
“Point 4: Look the dude in the video can’t count rotations, from 0:50 to 1:30 the Moon actually rotates twice, not the once the dude claims.”
Looks like Bob figured out what I call the 1+1 trick!
From there and going in reverse order, all of Gaslighting Graham’s points fall one by one.
The OPR is that it “spins” once per “orbit” in the same direction as the “orbit”, Little Willy. It’s OK that you still don’t understand, though. This stuff is complicated, to the uninitiated.
Astute readers might notice that Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again, switching to his idiosyncratic concept of orbit to sidestep the fact that me and Bob spotted.
The CSA Truther changes the orientation of the Moon as he displaces it along the axis of “the planet” we alluded to earlier. Fact 1 was couched in terms of that contraption. It was *not* referring to the Earth which, as Bob rightfully observes, does not move in circle. Neither does the Moon, for that matter, in ROOMBA.
Funny how Gaslighting Graham does not recall Fact 2 or how he does everything in his power to distract readers from Euler’s theorem. Truly funny.
If point 2 is wrong, your “Fact 1” no longer holds, Little Willy. Fortunately, point 2) is correct, and so your “Fact 1” holds.
Of course, this means you are in direct disagreement with bob. Which is why you are trying to distract by moving to your misunderstanding on point 4).
Had Gaslighting Graham any geometric intuition, he’d realize that his interpretations of (1) and (4) are incompatible.
Perhaps he ought to start by looking at Euler’s theorem?
bob said your “Fact 1” was incorrect, Little Willy. When are you going to dispute that with him? You can discuss Euler’s theorem with him, too, if you like.
While Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting Bob, astute readers might observe how he fails to realize that his (1)-(2) depends on his misconception over (3).
Our Ball-on-stringer can’t construct a position without twisting himself in a pretzel, and Bob is having a ball twisting him furthermore, pun intended.
Points 1) – 4) are correct, Little Willy. Sorry that upsets you so much.
Point 3) has a specific meaning, as I have repeatedly explained. It refers to those people who simply believe the moon rotates on its own internal axis wrt an inertial reference frame, and does not rotate on its own axis wrt a non-inertial reference frame. Those people are wrong. The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
This does not mean that reference frames aren’t useful, and necessary. They are useful, and necessary. Indeed, it’s wrt an inertial reference frame that we judge the orientation of an object when deciding if it is moving like the MOTR (which “Spinners” would describe as “translating in a circle”) or like the MOTL (“rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”).
Bob underlines the problem with Gaslighting Graham’s interpretation of frames of reference:
No wonder he keeps to his Very Narrow interpretation of (3)!
No problem at all, Little Willy. Why would it be?
I wonder how long Little Willy will evade his disagreement with bob? One hundred comments? A thousand?
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb again.
This old comment by Mighty Tim reinforces the same point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552868
That’s not the same point, at all, Little Willy. Never mind.
In any case, already done it, already won it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1552876
Pope Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Both Bob and Mighty Tim shows that reference frames matter, and Gaslighting Graham’s non-response evades the fact that his stance always revolves around (pun intended) a very peculiar frame of reference, whether it’s the contraption, his pet GIF, or when he speaks of a ball on string.
Show me some respect, show me some gratitude for the amount of time I spend patiently trying to teach you, argue against bob over your disagreement instead of evading it, and maybe I’ll teach you about reference frames.
Otherwise, I have no interest in engaging with you further on this. So, if you respond with more abuse, expect not to get a reply.
Yeah I would suggest Willard take a vacation or go play someplace else. I feel sorry that he is questioning his own sanity simply because you remain consistent in your viewpoint on this.
Willard must view himself as some kind of an incompetent and/or failure as a social justice warrior or something to be so disturbed by what you think.
As a Freedom Fighter, perhaps Gill should white knighting for Gaslighting Graham.
Next he’s gonna tell us that he’s been an amateur astronomer in another life, so he knows best.
> perhaps Gill should white knighting
Perhaps Gill should stop white knighting, of course.
Instead, he could comment on these quotes:
[BOB] the ball on a string is changing its orientation, therefore it is rotating on an internal axis
[MIGHTY TIM] In that frame, the horse is most definitely rotating. The nose will continuously change orientations from +x to +y to -x to -y and back around to +x.
‘Well lets see, the Moon keeps the same side to us as it orbits. And we know that a SPINNING thing shows us ALL sides.
A distant observer sees all sides of the Moon! For them, the OPR is that the Moon has SPIN.’
Bill sez “the same is true for a rotation on an external axis if you are at a fixed position outside of the arc of rotation. so your conclusion is not exclusive for spin. try another argument”
Not my argument.
And my question was how do you know the ‘objective physical reality’ is ‘The Moon does not Spin’?
read Dr. Madhavi on her definition of a rotation on an external axis.
You claim no physical connection between the moon and its rotational axis around which the moon rotates. But thats a claim that gravity has no physical connection between the attractor and the attracted.
Bill, bob and Tim can’t really be blamed for thinking a change of orientation equals rotation about an internal axis. bob has said before that he thinks “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” and “translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis” are the same movement, like the MOTR…and Tim doesn’t think “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” even exists as a motion! So, no wonder they are so confused. Of course they are going to think that.
Little Willy, on the other hand, has no such excuse. He only brings it up to shift focus away from his disagreement with bob. He’ll keep evading that for the rest of this thread. He knows full well that the argument “a change of orientation equals internal axis rotation” is very easily debunked…simply by the existence of the transformation, “rotation about an external axis”.
He’s just trolling.
“claim that gravity has no physical connection between the attractor and the attracted.”
Exactly. There is no physical connection.
Gill goes the gaslighting route:
The claim is that the center of mass (or COM) is where gravity is acting on orbiting bodies, Gill. This helps answer questions such as what is the COM of the Earth-Moon system that orbits the Sun?
Here’s a hint:
https://youtu.be/tzJNqcKWnrY?si=EcyrPlgD9xYi8Ez-
That being said, Gaslighting Graham’s gaslighting can’t be dethroned that easily:
This kind of comment is where distinguishing levels of description is quite useful, for transformations do not exist in ROOMBA! His problems with ontological commitments has already been underlined earlier:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1555194
Besides, the claims he imputes to Bob and Tim said are far from being incompatible. They are in fact both true. Neither of them is relevant to the fact that it is only by making a frame of reference explicit that we can interpret motion as translation or rotation.
Yep isn’t the truth that you put 4 spinners in a room and talk about rotations around an external axis and you will get 4 completely different ways of describing and setting rules for it, including denial there is such a thing. And to a man they think all those descriptions are what Newton described.
Nate says:
”claim that gravity has no physical connection between the attractor and the attracted.”
Exactly. There is no physical connection.
——————————
Apparently Nate thinks Newton’s topic of gravity doesn’t belong in Physics.
Gill, Gill,
When will he cut to the chase and tell us how gravity spins the Moon?
“This kind of comment is where distinguishing levels of description is quite useful, for transformations do not exist in ROOMBA!”
Well, “rotation about an internal axis” is also a transformation. So, now Little Willy is saying “spin” does not exist in his ROOMBA. Oh well.
“His problems with ontological commitments has already been underlined earlier:”
Little Willy links to a comment where he misread what I said.
“Besides, the claims he imputes to Bob and Tim said are far from being incompatible. They are in fact both true.”
Little Willy is completely ridiculous. If bob and Tim’s claims are true then his own “Fact 1” is false.
“Neither of them is relevant to the fact that it is only by making a frame of reference explicit that we can interpret motion as translation or rotation.”
As I have never disputed. However, depending on where you place the origin of your reference frame, you can confuse yourself into thinking something is rotating on its own internal axis when in fact it might turn out to be only rotating about an external axis, instead. As I explained in the comment I linked to, earlier. But, like I said, if you want to learn more, you’re going to have to buck your ideas up, and stop evading your disagreement with bob.
Willard says:
Gill, Gill,
When will he cut to the chase and tell us how gravity spins the Moon?
—————
Willard ask Nate as thats his belief.
But in fact, The earth’s gravity causes the moon and all its individual particles to rotate around the earth.
You are just confused because some other moons have particles rotating around the centers of those moons and as we know sometimes the eye is deceived to the extent that we can no longer process the idea that those particles are also rotating around the planet those moon’s are rotating about. And they it was reinforced by an inculcating elite class that operates only in an idealistic world that they spend most of their time on a couch trying to bring about.
And my question was how do you know the objective physical reality is The Moon does not Spin?
Neither Bill or DREMT has an answer.
Gill gaslights again.
Nate does not believe that gravity spins the Moon. The Moon spins because it has been spinning since its formation. OTOH, Gaslighting Graham holds that the Moon does not spin anymore. Gravity put the full breaks to it. A spin-orbit lock is thus a spin stop.
Gill is aligning himself with the crankiest position there may be in contemporary science after Flat Earthers!
“Yep isn’t the truth that you put 4 spinners in a room and talk about rotations around an external axis and you will get 4 completely different ways of describing and setting rules for it, including denial there is such a thing.”
The “Spinners” disagree amongst themselves on the absolute basics of this discussion, and, as we have seen, refuse to debate each other over those disagreements. This total lack of integrity is the reason the discussion won’t ever progress beyond the basics.
The OPR ‘logic’ fails to work for the Moon.
TMDNS is at a dead end.
Oh well!
I see Nate felt the need to comment again. He’s probably just saying that yes, the “Spinners” do need to argue amongst themselves until all are in agreement on points 1) – 4), as that’s the only way forward for this discussion. I remember, from back when I used to read his comments, that he would refer to the moon issue as “a long blog nightmare” or “this ordeal”. If he still feels that way, and ever wants it to end, he knows exactly what he has to do.
DREMTs attempts to respond to my posts would be more effective and on target if he stopped pretending to not read them.
Also, he is understandably desperate to divert the thread away from the original topic which was whether TMDNS and the OPR of that.
Neither he nor Bill seem to have anything to support the claim that the OPR is TMDNS.
Oh well!
…and, as a reminder for readers of what those points 1) – 4) are, let’s take a trip back to the very beginning of the sub-thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1555462
I see that Gaslighting Graham has nothing against this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1557643
Why would I get involved in a dispute between you and Bill? You two can sort that out yourselves. Just like how I won’t get involved when you and bob get into your disagreement.
Willard says:
”A spin-orbit lock is thus a spin stop.”
Yes thats correct any object in rotation around an external axis has forces to create a spin stop on any independent spin. We have talked about this with rotating bowls floating on a spinning bowl of water where the independent spin they possess upon acceleration of the spinning bowl is eliminated by water resistance. Moons and planets have drag on any independent spins they may possess.
So unless there is an active force maintaining the spin (see the engineering manual on that) the rotation on an external axis will bring an end to the independent spin.
Lets review. https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Dr. Madhavi says: ”A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same
direction during the motion.” Well no straight line within the moon keeps the same direction so we can eliminate both translations and general plane motions. Translations by definition of being a translation. And general plane motions because they include a translation. Madhavi illustrates this with figures 2(a) and 2(b) and cautions readers to not confuse the two simply because the object is moving in a curved direction.
Thus that only leaves rotations. So for that see above and how Willard finally figured out what that entails.
“Well no straight line within the moon keeps the same direction so we can eliminate both translations and general plane motions.”
False. A general plane motion has translation of its CM, and a rotation around its CM. The Moon’s motion agrees with that description.
The problem you have is the moon’s COM rotates around the earth its not a translating motion.
Additionally, with its 6.7 degree tilted axis, the Moon has out-of-plane rotation.
Madhavi: “Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel
planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). ”
The Moon’s motion does not satisfy this description. Its orbit is not circular. And its rotation is around an axis tilted 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis.
Oh well!
Gill goes full Moon Dragon crank:
Denying FLOM is a thing of beauty!
You and bob will get into your disagreement, won’t you, Little Willy?
Nate says:
Madhavi: Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel
planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1).
The Moons motion does not satisfy this description. Its orbit is not circular. And its rotation is around an axis tilted 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis.
Oh well!
————————————-
well an ellipse is much closer to a circle than an orbit is to a translation. anyway you are talking definitions rather than physics or the OPR.
and of course the reason the axis is tilted is because it is influenced by a hierarchy of multiple gravitational forceS and rotations.
so basically your argument is there is no such thing as a rotation on an external axis as all such rotations will be variously tweaked by gravity from multiple objects so why not write the good doctor and the thousands of teachers in the world teaching this stuff and just tell them every particle in the world rotates on its on axis and translates around the universe on all sorts of non-circular motions. lol!
and while your at it, should you deny that position explain why a rock on the surface of earth is deemed to rotate around the center of the earth but if elevated above the surface by excavating the soil from under it that motion around the earth magically becomes a translation around the center of the earth and a spin on the rock’s COM.
“nyway you are talking definitions rather than physics or the OPR.”
As opposed to what you guys offer which is no physics or sources that agree with you.
If you want to use a circular model to describe orbits, you certainly can.
Though I don’t know why anyone would choose to use a circular model that so innacurately predicts motion! When a much more accurate elliptical translation model from Kepler Newton is available.
In any case, these are models and not OPR.
models are not OPR.
"well an ellipse is much closer to a circle than an orbit is to a translation…"
Exactly, Bill. Picture the CSAItruth equipment. That’s the "Non-Spinner" model of "orbit" and "spin". Now picture an XY plotter, with a model moon attached to the pen, with a motor that can rotate it on its own internal axis, or not. The XY plotter equipment can translate the model moon in a circle ("Spinner" model of "orbit") and rotate the model moon on its own internal axis ("spin") by engaging the "moon spin" motor.
Both the "Non-Spinner" and "Spinner" equipment is comparable in that both require the "moon spin" motor to be engaged for "spin" to occur. The difference between them is what "orbit" is, in either case. Rotation about an external axis for the "Non-Spinners", and translation in a circle for the "Spinners".
Now, there’s neither a giant XY plotter in space, to move the moon around the Earth, or a giant arm connecting the Earth to the moon. However, one is clearly preferable to the other, since the XY plotter scenario disconnects the object being orbited from the object doing the orbiting. Thinking of "orbit without spin" as being translation, as per the "Spinners", disconnects the orbiting object from the object being orbited, completely. However, the OPR is that there is a connection between the two objects – gravity. Thus, the "giant arm" connecting Earth to moon has to be preferable than the "giant XY plotter".
That’s the beginnings of an argument to why the OPR is that "orbit without spin" is as per the MOTL, not the MOTR.
Strictly speaking, such arguments are outside the scope of my points 1) – 4), but I introduce it now, anyway, just for fun.
Here is how Gill Returns to Aristotelian Motion
(GRAM) Unless there is an active force maintaining the spin the rotation on an external axis will bring an end to the independent spin.
Natural motion needs movers!
“However, one is clearly preferable to the other, since the XY plotter scenario disconnects the object being orbited from the object doing the orbiting”
Which matches the situation of the Moon and all other planets!
DREMT disconnects TMDNS from OPR.
Whoops!
Now, all rational "Spinners" should agree that there is a connection between the object that’s orbiting and the object being orbited – gravity. Thus, the XY plotter equipment is not appropriate as a model for "orbit" and "spin".
More intelligent "Spinners" might try to counter this with a different model, like a yoyo with a frictionless connection between the string and the body of the yoyo, so that when swung in a circle it moves as per the MOTR. That way, they might argue, the "gravity" connection is simulated, whilst not compromising their beliefs.
The problems with this are two-fold:
1) It no longer shares the comparison to the CSAItruth equipment that "spin" occurs when the "moon spin" motor is engaged. As soon as you were to connect a motor to the yoyo equipment, it would move as per the MOTL without the motor engaged, rather than the MOTR.
2) The OPR for the yoyo with a frictionless connection is that it’s rotating on its own internal axis. This might seem counter-intuitive at first, but if you imagined that you could increase the friction gradually at the point of contact between the string and the yoyo, such that you slowly reduced the ability of the yoyo to "spin" until it was no longer physically able to "spin", the overall movement would shift from initially being like the MOTR to finally being as per the MOTL. When physically unable to rotate on its own internal axis, the yoyo would move as per the MOTL. When physically able to rotate on its own axis, the yoyo would move as per the MOTR. Thus we know that the OPR for the yoyo with a frictionless connection is that it’s rotating on its own internal axis.
“More intelligent “Spinners” might try to counter this with a different model, like a yoyo with a frictionless connection between the string”
Why the endless fruitless attempts to find toy model for the Moon’s motion?
When we already have perfectly good physics understanding of the Moon’s Orbit and rotation?
Also, let’s not forget:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/new-paper-submission-urban-heat-island-effects-in-u-s-summer-temperatures-1880-2015/#comment-1550495
…but now, back to points 1) – 4).
Just a reminder that a gravitational field does not reach out and reorient objects flying through it, as a string attached to a ball would, as a rigid arm attached to the object would.
Anyone can observe this. For example, a launched basketball in a 3-pointer, follows a curved trajectory into the basket. It’s orientation does not follow its trajectory.
As opposed to if it were attached to a string whose other end was attched to the floor, the basketball would reorient due to the string’s attachment as it followed its trajectory to the basket.
In reality, a basketball can have any spin at all, on any axis, forwards, backwards, sideways, as it TRANSLATES on its trajectory (path) to the basket. Because it’s translation and rotation are independent motions.
Gravity does not reach out a grab hold of it and reorient it!
Just as planets can have any orientation, or spin at all as they TRANSLATE in their orbit. Because their translation and rotation are, in general, independent motions. Because gravity does not, in general reach out and grab them and align them to it.
Thus planetary orbits and rotations are described with independent parameters. Astronomy, physics, and engineering require a compelling rationale to change this.
No idea what Nate said, but I doubt it was anything very interesting, or compelling. He never used to make very good arguments, back when I read his comments. Not sure why he keeps responding.
Nate’s comment is actually both interesting and compelling allowing DREMT to learn from the comment. Nate et. al. keep responding in order to rightfully correct DREMT’s mistaken and half-truth comments.
Oh God, the Beast of Sophistry has been summoned, for some reason.
Nate’s reply demonstrates that he doesn’t have any knowledge of the basis of physics. Nate believes that physics describes an OPR, Objective Physical Reality.
But physics is only a symbolically idealistic representation (”SIR”) of a physical reality. Thus Nate’s concept of reality is instead imprecise (though very useful) and is designed for ease of use and represented in comparison to an idealistic perfection that has no analogue in the real physical world.
The OPR is that the earth’s gravity rules the rotation of the moon. But Nate with his lack of philosophical training and logic doesn’t comprehend that. Instead he considers SIR to be physical reality.
And he continually expresses that belief by kowtowing and name dropping (like politely addressing his teachers and their idols as ”Sir”). Its really kind of cute. But like most libs they have a lot of idealistic concepts flashing in their brains causing them to be ignorant of the true nature of things and often sends them off on religious crusades that do a lot more harm than good. Worse they ignore the underlying basis of all that and think they have moved from generations of religious bigots to a generation who honors the true OPR of the world. All the Kings men of old weren’t true scientists even when the fact is they used the same style of reasoning. . . kowtowing to all the Sirs in very undemocratic and authoritarian ways.
Nate says:
”Just a reminder that a gravitational field does not reach out and reorient objects flying through it, as a string attached to a ball would, as a rigid arm attached to the object would.”
Here is the perfect example I was talking about in the previous post.
Nate argues that since he believes a cannonball would not rotate in time with its trajectory instantaneously then the cannonball will be free to rotate at whatever speed it started out with forever.
But this is known by physics to not be true. Also its known by physics that the string nor rigid arm exercises 100% control over the orientation of the ball. Gravity still influences the rotation but the forces provided by the string and arm override them and the friction on bearings that support the string and arm will eventually end the rotation.
Gravity though will not end the rotation as the arm of gravity follows the ball around the earth. It will end any extraneous additional rotation that the object might have though.
For example in the scenario that Nate refuses to address where a rock is elevated above the surface of the earth and the rotation it had going around the earth as part of the earth’s surface is magically moved by physicists from the axis being the center of the earth to a non-rotating orbit plus a rotation around the COM of the rock.
Lets delve into this a little deeper. If you lift the rock off the surface without accelerating it (as would a flag going up a pole) but instead this is a cannon giving only existing rotation and a vertical boost. The flag pole top is moving around the earth faster than its base. So the flagpole top will create more angular momentum on the flag as it is raised to the top. The ball shot out of cannon will not do this. So the orbit period would become greater because the velocity did not increase with elevation. Spinners confuse themselves with the typical cannon shot because the object does get acceleration in its trajectory, but not so with a vertical shot. So the orbit period is longer than the time the earth takes to rotate. And the spin part of rotating around the center of the earth is no longer in time with the orbit. It has a counter rotation effect that gravity will eventually eliminate. And of course spinners always argue that all gravity ever does is slow an existing rotation around the COM of the obect but what is really happening is the object eliminating the counterspin to bring it into tidal locked compliance with a rotation around the COM of the earth. The orbit speed will still be the same so the earth with its spin will continue to be out of sync with the rotation of the rock. But that is always going to be the case unless you use the flag pole technique of elevating the rock.
Oh, I forgot to link to this earlier, when I linked to Swenson’s comment about Newton’s cannonball:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
The animations show what happens when a cannonball, launched without spin, orbits the Earth. “Spinners” somehow see the cannonball as moving like the MOTR. I’m not sure how they can possibly see it that way, but they do. To me (and Swenson too, apparently) it seems obvious that it would be moving as per the MOTL, or as per a ball on a string.
You should be able to see the parallels to the orbit of the moon if you use this:
https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_all.html
and select both “Gravity Force” and “Velocity” for the Earth and moon simulator.
Gill spills all of Gaslighting Graham’s beans:
The string of the ball in string meant to simulate gravity!
Perhaps our Aristotelians should get their story straight.
“Nate argues that since he believes a cannonball would not rotate in time with its trajectory instantaneously then the cannonball will be free to rotate at whatever speed it started out with forever.”
I don’t recall saying that.
But clearly, a cannonball travelling in space, without the drag forces of the atmosphere, or any other torques, would rotate at its initial speed and on its initial rotational axis for a long time.
Because it obeys conservation of angular momentum.
“Gravity though will not end the rotation as the arm of gravity follows the ball around the earth.”
Yep.
“It will end any extraneous additional rotation that the object might have though.”
Assertion lacking any physics rationale.
“To me (and Swenson too, apparently) it seems obvious that it would be moving as per the MOTL,”
Wow, The ball has no distinguishing features to indicate its orientation.
Clearly non-spinners imagination is hard at work supporting their beliefs!
“Nate believes that physics describes an OPR, Objective Physical Reality.”
Bill shamelessly misrepresents my beliefs.
This is actually the opposite of what I have clearly stated, several times now.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556188
“I would simply point out the mathematical models for motion are not ‘physical reality’.
They are simply useful models to help humans predict, with the help of physics, what motion will occur.”
“Gill spills all of Gaslighting Graham’s beans”
Why are you bringing me into it? Oh yeah, you’re obsessed with me.
Little Willy, when are you going to have your dispute with bob?
And FYI, Bill, it is DREMT who is the one promoting the idea that specific models for motion are ‘objective physical reality’, OPR.
EG
DREMT: “Really, he should understand by now the OPR is that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis, since its being swung around on the end of a string, which constrains its motion and prevents it from doing so.”
So you really need to explain your SIR narrative to HIM:
“But physics is only a symbolically idealistic representation (SIR) of a physical reality.”
Bob was thus right all along: our Ball on Stringers are just sloppy with their thinking.
Astute readers will immediately see how Gill replaces FLOM with GLAM, evades ROOMBA with SIR, and tries to cut his losses by hiting that TMDNS in OPR, none of which resolves the incompatibility between 4) and 1-2) or addresses Gaslighting Graham’s misunderstanding of 3). In fact none of this explains how Moon Dragon Cranks get from Rules 1-2 and T1-2 to MOTR.
Astute readers undoubtedly kept track of all these acronyms too!
If bob was “right all along” about my point 2), then Little Willy’s “Fact 1” would be wrong. That’s why bob said that Little Willy’s “Fact 1” was “incorrect”. Since Little Willy is actually right, on that, and bob is wrong, I wonder when he will scrape together the integrity to argue that out with bob?
Gotta redefine these acronyms again in each new Comments section.
What is GLAM?
And FLOM is Newton’s First Law, and is also known as the Law of Inertia (LOI).
“…none of which resolves the incompatibility between 4) and 1-2) or addresses Gaslighting Graham’s misunderstanding of 3).”
There is no such incompatibility, or misunderstanding. Points 1) – 4) are correct.
“But physics is only a symbolically idealistic representation (“SIR”) of a physical reality.”
Bill hits the nail on the head, again. So, back to my point 1), which introduces the concept of objective physical reality, or OPR, to the discussion. Instead of the usual ball on a string, let’s go with a wooden horse, securely bolted to the floor of a spinning merry-go-round.
Kinematically, you can describe the movement of the wooden horse as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
However, that’s SIR. Not OPR.
You could say that the wooden horse appears to be rotating on its own internal axis wrt some specific reference frame, and not rotating on its own internal axis wrt some other specific reference frame.
However, that’s SIR, again. Not OPR.
The objective physical reality for the wooden horse is that it’s not rotating on its own internal axis, as the merry-go-round spins. Have the merry-go-round stationary. Can the wooden horse physically rotate on its own internal axis? Of course not. It’s securely bolted to the floor of the merry-go-round. So, when the merry-go-round spins, is the wooden horse suddenly now physically able to rotate on its own internal axis? Of course not. It’s still securely bolted to the floor of the merry-go-round. The OPR is that the wooden horse is not rotating on its own internal axis.
That’s OPR. Not SIR.
“Bill hits the nail on the head, again. ”
So DREMT declares. Then proceeds to contradict Bill.
Bill is saying our mathematical models for motion are symbolic representions of reality. For us. To use. To describe and predict motion.
They are NOT EVER objective physical realty.
But DREMT asserts, without a sensible rationale, that some models, particularly his pet models, ARE objective physical reality.
Obviously if two geometric models can equally well describe a motion, they are both symbolic representations of the motion, and neither one is OPR.
Obviously this point went well over his head.
The objective reality is that the Moon is a paper cutout glued to a clock, and Gaslighting Graham is a freaking genius.
Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m a genius, but I’m certainly more intelligent than Little Willy. That isn’t saying much, though.
The OPR for the wooden horse on the merry-go-round is that it’s not rotating on its own internal axis. The OPR for the ball on a string is that it’s not rotating on its own internal axis.
I’m not talking about them in terms of being models of the moon’s motion, of course. I’m simply talking about the actual, real world examples themselves.
To get to the OPR for the moon is more complex, but I’ve started an argument to that effect already, and nobody has had any sensible rebuttal, so far.
The OPR is as simple as identifying the superior force that does or will control the motion in question. in rotations that is a matter of identifying the primary axis around which the rotation in question is occurring.
spinners though ignore the OPR as they have been trained like seals to consider a SIR as the OPR even if that was not the intent of their instructor. a seal will catch a thrown ball even though its not food because he believes some food will eventually tossed. only dumbseals catch the ball thinking that its food.
Gaslighting Graham and Gill try to gaslight astute readers into thinking that a silly contraption is more real than the laws of physics.
LMAO!
Astute readers will know that’s a false accusation, Little Willy.
Gill believes that when the CSA Truther creates a translation by removing an internal rotation from the external rotation, the internal rotation does not exist.
ROFL!
Willard says:
Gill believes that when the CSA Truther creates a translation by removing an internal rotation from the external rotation, the internal rotation does not exist.
ROFL!
——————–
On command Little Willy snatches yet another red plastic ball out of the air believing it was a huge chunk of sashimi.
Nate says:
”I would simply point out the mathematical models for motion are not ‘physical reality’.
They are simply useful models to help humans predict, with the help of physics, what motion will occur.”
Yes indeed. But that is true if and only if you have correctly identified the source of the force that will cause the motion. If you don’t properly identify that your prediction will in all likelihood fail unless serendipity interferes.
Its important to amend the above with a few facts of life.
Unless you have your OPR correct your SIR models are worthless. They don’t teach much OPR in academic settings (lab work being the exception). OPR is pretty much left to graduating and getting a field job where you get to put your models to work and you start out at the bottom gaining experience and advancing as your knowledge of OPR increases.
the same process is true for all fields. That’s where the meme came from: ”Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach” and the meme also provides a major reason why students get so little experience or training in OPR. Going to a military school is a whole different kind of experience.
Bill, @10:06 PM, is that really what Nate said!? It’s unusual for him to agree with us so completely. All good progress, though.
Gill issues another papal bull:
(UYHYOCYSMAW) Unless you have your OPR correct your SIR models are worthless.
UYHYOCYSMAW is so confused it is getting ridiculous. Let the CSA Truther Contraction be CTC. A few questions:
Q1. Is the CTC at scale?
Q2. What is the Earth orbit in the CTC?
Q3. Where is the Sun?
Q4. Where is the barycenter in the CTC?
Nate: “I would simply point out the mathematical models for motion are not ‘physical reality’.
They are simply useful models to help humans predict, with the help of physics, what motion will occur.”
Glad to hear that Bill clearly agrees:
“Yes indeed.”
“physics is only a symbolically idealistic representation (SIR) of a physical reality.”
But then he totally CONTRADICTS himself, insisting that we CAN describe ‘objective physical reality’ with physics and mathematics.
“The OPR is as simple as identifying the superior force that does or will control the motion in question.”
“The OPR is that the earths gravity rules the rotation of the moon.”
As usual, Bill is an unreliable narrator of his own thoughts.
Little Willy gets himself more and more confused, introducing more and more ridiculous acronyms into the debate in an attempt to parody me, yet I’ve only actually introduced MOTL, MOTR and OPR. Everybody involved in the debate knows what the first two mean, and OPR seems to be catching on, fine. There’s no need to overdo it, though.
The CSAItruth equipment is not meant to replicate the moon’s motion, exactly, down to every last detail. Nor would the XY plotter equipment be expected to. All it’s really doing, IMO, is showing the basics of what the "Non-Spinner" position is, just as the XY plotter equipment shows the basics of what the "Spinner" position is. You can’t expect the equipment to resolve the issue of what the OPR is for "orbit without spin", completely, but it does point the way for an argument that "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL, rather than the MOTR, since the XY plotter equipment disconnects the object being orbited from the object doing the orbiting, whereas the OPR is that there’s a connection between them – gravity.
The OPR is that there is a physically-motivated model where TMDS and it works much better than the one where TMDNS, to describe and predict the Moon’s motion precisely as needed by science and engineering.
And the OPR is that DREMT and Bill keep declaring that TMDNS is OPR, but offering nothing substantive to support the claim.
So that’s a dead end.
As nobody has even come close to addressing the arguments I’ve made, let alone refuting them, I guess my hands are tied – I’m forced to declare the issue settled. I’ll reluctantly accept the winner’s medal, along with Bill. Winning arguments is hard work, but someone’s got to do it.
GG cannot evade a simple fact:
(TCCTOTM) The CTC changes the orientation of the Moon.
Why would I “evade” what is obvious, and not a problem?
Astute readers already know the answer to that one –
TCCTOTM implies that SOANI!
Grow up, Little Willy.
GGGA.
(TIS) TCCTOTM Implies SOANI!
Nobody knows what SOANI is. Nobody cares.
Astute readers may not care about Gaslighting Graham’s gaslighting, just as they don’t care much about his silly acronym game.
They should note that our acronym was incorrect:
(TITS) TCCTOTM Implies That SOANI!
If SOANI stands for Spin and Orbit Are Not Independent, then Little Willy is wrong, again.
I could equally argue that "spin" and "orbit" are not independent with the XY plotter equipment, because from the "Non-Spinner" perspective, they’re not. However, I wouldn’t argue that, as it’s just a silly and illogical argument. The correct statement is that "spin" and "orbit" are independent with both the XY plotter and the CSAItruth equipment, the difference is in how "orbit" is perceived by either side of the debate.
I see this discussion has deteriorated to its predicted state.
For the navel gazers out there:
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/reality-objective-exist/
If you are making up new acronyms you are either a crackpot or on the cutting edge of science.
Or taking the piss.
OTTP
bob turns up to argue with Little Willy, no doubt, as he should.
Just a reminder…bob said:
"Maybe there is an astute reader who can tell the Pop DR EMPTY the first of his name why this statement is incorrect.
“Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees.”
It has something to do with what orbits are not."
That "Fact 1" was Little Willy’s statement. So, Little Willy and bob are in direct, absolute disagreement. Off they go.
The Pope Dr EMPTY the first of his name.
You are busted, it’s your fact 1 in the first place, you even admit to it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1557114
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556957
In that post you claim
“1) a ball on a string is rotating on both an internal and an external axis, same as the Earth is doing.”
and this:
“Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the planet is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees.”
I claim the first is true and the second is false.
The second is false, and it is your statement, not Willard’s.
Because satellites orbiting planets all orbit in ellipses where the speed of the external “rotation” or you should say revolves, does not match the speed of the internal rotation.
Because Kepler.
I have proven 1) to be true, more than once, you should be familiar with my proof, you have not been able to refute it so far.
Maybe try again?
Sorry, bob, I might have taught him it in the first place, but Little Willy agrees, and it’s his statement you said was incorrect. Your disagreement is with him. Plus, he said:
“The CSA Truther changes the orientation of the Moon as he displaces it along the axis of “the planet” we alluded to earlier. Fact 1 was couched in terms of that contraption. It was *not* referring to the Earth which, as Bob rightfully observes, does not move in circle.”
So, there you have it. Little Willy’s “Fact 1” relates to the CSAItruth contraption, which moves in circular motion, not elliptical. So, all your garbage about elliptical orbits is just that – garbage. We are discussing circular motion only. There is no excuse for you, no way out. You disagree with Little Willy, directly, and absolutely. Either argue it out with him, or continue to look ridiculous. Your choice, bob!
You got a problem Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name.
I could care less about circular motion.
The Moon rotates on its axis.
I am right about that.
If you want to discuss that, that would be fine.
bob simply doesn’t have the integrity to debate Little Willy. What a loser.
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name.
“So, there you have it. Little Willys Fact 1 relates to the CSAItruth contraption, which moves in circular motion, not elliptical.”
Not correct, “Fact 1” has the word planet in it, so it does not refer to the CSI truth contraption.
Not well played.
Well, according to Little Willy, who wrote the “Fact 1” statement, it relates to the CSAItruth contraption. My guess would be the “planet” referred to is the model planet “Earth” in the centre of the contraption. Maybe that’s another thing you can argue with Little Willy about, though.
And so Gaslighting Graham finally agrees with Bob – Fact 1 does not refer to the real Earth!
There is hope.
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
When you quote someone it is appropriate to mention who you are quoting.
In this sub thread I could not find where Willard said what you said he said, I could only find where you said it without attribution.
So add Rhetoric to the list of topics you are flunking.
He said it here, bob:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1557151
Little Willy, I do not agree with bob, and nor do you. His:
“1) a ball on a string is rotating on both an internal and an external axis, same as the Earth is doing.”
is incompatible with your “Fact 1”. bob is wrong, you are right.
Gaslighting Graham finally admits that he was gaslighting Bob.
There is hope.
When will he cite the original comment, so that he will be able to confirm with Bob that “the planet” does not refer to the Earth?
Little Willy won’t debate bob, and bob won’t debate Little Willy, despite their disagreement. How sad. It makes them both look absolutely terrible, though, so long may it continue, I guess.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights Bob again.
When will he link to the original comment from the original thread?
Meanwhile, astute readers can see that there’s no real disagreement between me and Bob when we interpret frames of reference properly.
"Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is either movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR, Little Willy. Your "Fact 1" puts it as movement like the MOTL. bob think it’s movement like the MOTR. Your disagreement could not be more absolute.
Reference frames won’t bail you out of this one, since the reference frame is a given – the origin is in the "Earth" (circle in the centre on each side of the GIF, which the "moon" orbits) and the coordinate system axes point to "fixed stars".
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
Here is the truth of the matter:
1) a ball on a string is rotating on both an internal and an external axis, same as the Earth is doing.
and this:
Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the origin is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees.
Now both statements are correct.
Here is why reference frames matter
Your claim DR EMPTY
“Reference frames wont bail you out of this one, since the reference frame is a given the origin is in the “Earth” (circle in the centre on each side of the GIF, which the “moon” orbits) and the coordinate system axes point to “fixed stars”.
The fact is the Moon on the left rotates because the face of the Moon points in different directions as the Moon rotates and revolves around the Earth.
While the Moon on the right points consistently to one direction, meaning it is the one that is not rotating.
Now bob believes two incompatible statements are both correct! Hilarious. More, please.
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
Speaks with Papal supremacy.
Why don’t you explain why the two statements are incompatible?
Will Gaslighting Graham, First of His Name (GGFOHN) try to gaslighting Bob with his misreading of Holy Madhavi again?
Will he finally admit that the CSA Truther’s Contraption (CTC) keeps the same face of the Earth facing the Moon?
So many questions, so little time.
Even more hilarity ensues as bob fails to understand why the two statements are incompatible.
The two statements are incompatible, bob, because for your statement about the ball on a string to be correct, "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" would have to be movement as per the MOTR; whereas for Little Willy’s "Fact 1" to be correct, "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" would have to be movement as per the MOTL.
Little Willy’s "Fact 1" is correct, and your statement about the ball on a string is incorrect.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting Bob.
When will he concede that he was quoting a geometric fact?
When will he accept that incompatibility and equivalence don’t mix?
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
You are just stating that a ball on a string is rotating on an internal axis while rotating around an external axis is incorrect.
You fail to explain yourself.
I wonder why.
No, bob, I was explaining why the two statements were incompatible, like you asked.
If you now want to know why a ball on a string is not rotating about both an external and an internal axis, try watching the CSAItruth video again. You will note that when the moon rotates about both an external and an internal axis, it does not move as per the MOTL. All pretty simple, really.
Amazing that you’ve been wrong about it for over five years, and counting.
And, that’s hilarious.
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
I can keep correcting you all day
“whereas for Little Willys “Fact 1” to be correct, “rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis” would have to be movement as per the MOTL, as long as the two rotations are synchronous”
There, I corrected your statement.
There aren’t two rotations, bob. There is only one, about the external axis. That’s why it’s "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
Not having a very good day, are you?
Alright. Let’s help Gaslighting Graham. Here’s the backstory to the original comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1554511
Little Willy doesn’t seem to realise, he’s on "ignore". I’m just speaking to bob, and bob alone.
bobdroege says:
” ”the two rotations are synchronous”
There, I corrected your statement.”
Oh oh! Bob strays off the reservation! The Spinner Tribe Tribal Council is going to have to send out a posse to round him up.
GGFOHN gaslights again.
Here’s the comment that follows:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1554521
"S1 makes an external rotation of 90 degrees centered on the planet. S2 makes a translation superposed with an internal rotation of 90 degrees.
Have S1 and S2 made the same motion?"
Mind you, bob’s answer to that question would have to be, "no".
Unless he was going to go back on himself, and suddenly say that he agrees "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion like the MOTL, after all. In which case, he would answer, "yes".
Pope DR EMPTY the first of his name
“There arent two rotations, bob. There is only one, about the external axis. Thats why its “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”.”
Yes there are two.
First of all, per Mahdavi and others, an external rotation does not include a change in orientation.
Second, if it’s rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, then the orientation must stay the same.
End of story, why don’t you discuss it with Willard.
I am putting you on ignore.
If you’re putting me on "ignore", bob, I guess that means you won’t be commenting at all, for the rest of the sub-thread. Since I’m the only person you’ve been responding to, as you refuse to speak to Little Willy over your disagreement.
"Yes there are two"
No, bob. Read "Fact 1" again:
"Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the origin is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees."
And so GGFOHN Tries To Gaslighting Bob Again (GTTGBA)!
Here is the comment that follows:
For some reason GTTGBA instead of responding.
“First of all, per Mahdavi and others, an external rotation does not include a change in orientation.”
Wrong. All the particles of the body move in concentric circles about the axis of rotation, remember? That means the body is changing orientation.
“End of story, why don’t you discuss it with Willard.”
I would, but his comments reveal he agrees with me and disagrees with you on this. So, there’s nothing much to discuss.
I guess you two are never going to debate your disagreement. Oh well.
Poor Gaslighting Graham. He forgot to emphasize:
“”Fact 1. One external rotation of N degrees centered on the origin is equivalent to a translation superposed with an internal rotation of N degrees.”
bob is actually one of the least intelligent and least effective “Spinners”, being wrong about this basic, fundamental issue (my point 2)) for over five years. Of course, that doesn’t stop Little Willy from worshipping the ground he walks on. A few months ago, bob went off on one and was arguing with me for days on end about the GHE, and Little Willy obediently tagged along. Turned out they were both wrong, of course, as Tim Folkerts later confirmed. You would think Little Willy would have learned his lesson, but no. This time, Little Willy doesn’t even agree with bob himself, but he’s still trying to somehow support him, at the same time! Really weird.
Gaslighting Graham might be the dumbest Moon Dragon crank there is, for he forgets a few little details to keep his story straight.
First, the Earth is not fixed, so whatever point he thought he had with Holy Madhavi is empty.
Second, the Earth and the Moon are not fully synchronized, which means that the CSA Truther’s contraption is void.
Third, equivalence implies compatibility, which implies that he once again fails basic logic.
Fourth, frames of reference are required to determine an axis of rotation, hence Bob wins another round.
One and two are outside the scope of my points 1) – 4), three I’ve already been through with you once:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1556966
Four I’ve been through with you multiple times:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1557174
I just go back to one of them.
bob doesn’t win anything, Little Willy. I’m right on points 1) – 4).
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once more. The CSA Truther contraption moves the Moon by rotating the Earth. This implies that the Earth keeps its same side facing the Moon.
This leads to two important conclusions regarding the contraption:
C1. It does not model the Motion of Moon (MOM).
C2. It makes the motion of Earth and Moon interdependent.
This leads to two important conclusions regarding GGFOHN’s toll bridge:
C3. C2 refutes Graham’s (4).
C4. C1 refutes Graham’s overall stance about Objective Reality.
The Earth does not drag the Moon through the sky by one big fantastic external rotation, and that’s that.
“C3. C2 refutes Graham’s (4).”
Not in the least. “Orbit” and “spin” are independent with both the XY plotter and the CSAItruth equipment. The difference is what “orbit” is, in either case. The motion of the model Earth when the model moon “orbits” with the CSAItruth equipment is utterly irrelevant. Not sure why you can’t see that, but guess you’re just desperate.
“C4. C1 refutes Graham’s overall stance about Objective Reality.”
Nah, not at all. I am not claiming that the CSAItruth equipment models the exact motion of the moon. So you’re just attacking a huge straw man.
“The CSA Truther contraption moves the Moon by rotating the Earth. This implies that the Earth keeps its same side facing the Moon.”
I can see elsewhere in the comments that you’re currently having another huge meltdown about this, arguing with Swenson and Gordon and revealing how utterly confused you are. The CSAItruth equipment moves the moon by swinging a rotating arm. That’s what you should focus on. That on one end of the arm they affix the model Earth, which thus rotates when the arm moves, means absolutely nothing. It is not implied that they think the Earth keeps its same side facing the moon, in real life. They could have attached the model Earth to some low friction washer making it move independently from the movement of the arm, but what would that achieve, really? Most people should be intelligent enough to understand that the Earth’s spin is irrelevant in the model. You’re massively clutching at straws, here.
“Wrong. All the particles of the body move in concentric circles about the axis of rotation, remember? That means the body is changing orientation.”
I see DREMT is deferring to the standard definition of Rotation about an external axis.
Nice.
But he and his TEAM don’t hesitate to reject this same standard definition, regularly as needed to support their beliefs!
“Actually elliptical orbits is proof that rotations on external axes includes elliptical motion as well”
Just a note that this has been a very long sub-thread (the longest under all the comments, as is to be expected whenever I start posting – nobody can resist responding to me since I live rent free in so many people’s heads) and so, naturally, no matter what, I’ll be having the last word. Even if we have to be here until next November. I may have to lock things down to a "single response from me every 24 hours" situation, soon, though, before it gets even more out of control than it already is.
“nobody can resist responding to me since”
I admit it is difficult to resist responding when DREMT (again) posts such obviously contradictory self-goals.
…I may have to lock things down to a "single response from me every 24 hours" situation, soon, though, before it gets even more out of control than it already is.
Gaslighting Graham plays Humpty Dumpty once more:
Reinterpreting my words does not counter what I am saying. But even if we grant his idiosyncrasies, he’s still wrong. In the CSA Truther’s contraption, the Moon depends on the Earth‘s spin. More than that, but the Earth-Moon system becomes totally interlocked, as the Earth only faces the Moon one way. We’re far from having independent motions!
Astute readers may wonder how long Gaslighting Graham will continue to gaslighting them. Nobody knows.
Little Willy ignores the debunking of his comments and simply repeats himself. Not interesting.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
GGGA. His trademarked armwaving does not counter anything.
There’s no Objective Reality behind the silly contraption. It only serves to illustrate a geometric equivalence that he portrays as an incompatibility.
All this is utterly contemptible.
Willard what we are talking about here is OPR (Objective Physical Reality)
You are perfectly welcome to build a device that shows your OPR in a different light. . .gee you can even comb the internet and find a video of one like DREMT did.
Until you do that consider that you are losing the argument. And if you don’t chalk it us as a loss.
Bill,
It’s trivial, but I was the one who introduced the CSA truther video.
Bob you are or anybody else who questions the OPR of a rotation on an external axis is more than welcome to design, build, demonstrate or produce a video of such a device that rotates on two axes and looks like the moon.
When you are done come back and we can discuss your results. Until then DREMT is the only one in here who has accomplished the challenge.
Fine, I will repeat the debunking:
“In the CSA Truther’s contraption, the Moon depends on the Earth‘s spin. More than that, but the Earth-Moon system becomes totally interlocked, as the Earth only faces the Moon one way. We’re far from having independent motions”
The independent motions are the “orbit” and “spin” of the moon. Who cares if the equipment spins the Earth when the moon “orbits”!? The motion of the Earth is completely irrelevant to this model! As I said, and you ignored:
“The CSAItruth equipment moves the moon by swinging a rotating arm. That’s what you should focus on. That on one end of the arm they affix the model Earth, which thus rotates when the arm moves, means absolutely nothing. It is not implied that they think the Earth keeps its same side facing the moon, in real life. They could have attached the model Earth to some low friction washer making it move independently from the movement of the arm, but what would that achieve, really? Most people should be intelligent enough to understand that the Earth’s spin is irrelevant in the model. You’re massively clutching at straws, here.“
Not that Little Willy will learn. He’s completely ineducable.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Gill fumbles the ball on his line of 10:
He’s now confusing Gaslighting Graham’s artifice with ROOMBA!
Astute readers should wonder how realistic is a model of a complete tidal lock for the actual Earth-Moon system…
And…Gaslighting Graham confirms his Humpty Dumpty act:
His “orbit” and “spin” does not refer to orbit and spin as usually understood among astronomers.
He defines an orbit without spin as implying a change of orientation of a celestial body, whereas a spin involves a change of orientation!
Astute readers might wonder if he believes that repeating his little semantic games will change reality or convince the community of astronomers that he alone is right.
And the Objective Physical Reality is that DREMT and Bill keep declaring that TMDNS is OPR, but offer nothing substantive to support the claim.
So thats a dead end.
Bill,
To accurately model the motion of the Moon, you would need half a dozen servos and motors.
The OPR, or the empirical evidence shows that the Moon revolves around the Earth with one axis, and rotates on another axis that is not parallel to that external axis of rotation.
But there is a flaw in calling it an external axis of rotation because the orbit is not circular, so your OPR is incorrect.
But you can build a contraption that will model the two non parallel axes.
Start with a rotating arm supporting the Moon powered by one motor.
At the end of this arm put another motor rotating clockwise to remove the rotation of the Moon, then add another motor rotating counterclockwise tilted by 5 degrees.
That would get a step closer the the OPR of the Moon’s actual observed motion.
bobdroege says:
Bill,
To accurately model the motion of the Moon, you would need half a dozen servos and motors.
————————————–
that is irrelevant. it is also true that is true for all real world rotations on an external axis as in the real everything is gravitationally affected by every object in the universe. you need to control your emotions and inculcation and realize how you flip flop between SIR and OPR based upon how close you want to look at an engineering problem. you guys make the same error when you start concluding stu-pid stuff about climate. lets keep the motions of the moon within the scope of the motions you can perceive with your naked eye from a place on the surface of the earth and build that device.
bobdroege says:
Start with a rotating arm supporting the Moon powered by one motor.
At the end of this arm put another motor rotating clockwise to remove the rotation of the Moon, then add another motor rotating counterclockwise tilted by 5 degrees.
yes and all the power sources driving most of this is simply the gravitational forces of other objects as is true with every object rotating on an external axis.
You seem perfectly willing, if you were consistent, to argue their is no such thing as a rotation on an external axis.
you may as well tell us that massless particles of the earth don’t rotate around the center of the earth but instead orbit the center of the earth while spinning on the center of the dimensionless space they take up.
logically your argument is circular. again model me a rotation on an external axis and tell me what powers every motor you install. then i will show you a simpler way of building it.
you see bob engineers need to be efficient as well as be observant.
“yes and all the power sources driving most of this is simply the gravitational forces of other objects as is true with every object rotating on an external axis.”
Sure. And gravity from Jupiter affects babies being born on Earth, thus we need to consult the astrological charts carefully before conceiving, and later when choosing their spouse for them.
Even more so:
“the real everything is gravitationally affected by every object in the universe”
Bill,
” lets keep the motions of the moon within the scope of the motions you can perceive with your naked eye from a place on the surface of the earth and build that device.”
**** that, I have a telescope, and a camera.
OPR is not just what is observable to the naked eye.
Bill,
You know you need the non engineers to tell you when you go off the rails.
“you may as well tell us that massless particles of the earth dont rotate around the center of the earth but instead orbit the center of the earth while spinning on the center of the dimensionless space they take up.”
Massless particles have to move at the speed of light, so they don’t rotate around the center of the Earth. Obviously you missed that in class.
“logically your argument is circular. again model me a rotation on an external axis and tell me what powers every motor you install. then i will show you a simpler way of building it.”
Yeah, but I am interested in modeling the motion of the Moon, which is not rotating on an external axis, no matter how much of the non-spinners cool aid you drink.
Nate says:
”Sure. And gravity from Jupiter affects babies being born on Earth, thus we need to consult the astrological charts carefully before conceiving, and later when choosing their spouse for them.”
————————
It really is fun in here watching how many ignorant guys in here who post about science but obviously don’t know anything about what they are posting.
Here we have Nate essentially claiming Jupiter has no effect on the rotations other planet systems, which of course a lot of high school students know well. Nate’s take is about as well accepted as a flat earth.
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-pull-of-jupiter-and-venus-on-earth-causes-major-climate-events/
”Earths orbit around the sun is almost a perfectly circular one. That is, except every 405,000 years, when the gravitational pull of massive Jupiter and Venus yanks the earths orbit into an ellipse of about 5, producing the Milankovitch cycles that cause the planets glacial and interglacial cycles. Scientists can now link changes in the climate, environment, dinosaurs, mammals, and fossils around the world to this 405,000-year cycle in a very precise way, says geomagnetic researcher Dennis V. Kent of Rutgers University, who has now documented this periodic warping of our orbit.”
bobdroege says:
”Yeah, but I am interested in modeling the motion of the Moon, which is not rotating on an external axis, no matter how much of the non-spinners cool aid you drink.”
Bob repeats the best scientific argument for the moon not rotating around the earth that he has been able to muster to date. [/s]
The discussion continued down-thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561088
and reached its conclusion.
Bill, note that bob believes “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion like the MOTR rather than the MOTL! I know, hilariously and obviously wrong. So, there’s no point you trying to reason with him. Note that he has also argued to the effect that every grain of sand in the Sahara Desert is rotating on its own internal axis, just because the Earth spins. He’s one of the least intelligent and least effective “Spinners”. A desperate and hopeless failure that’s lost every argument he’s ever had on the subject due to his confusion over my point 2).
Oh well.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Gill schlurps another one, and Gaslighting Graham links to some braying by Mike Flynn. The argument he tries to evade is here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561201
Since he hasn’t countered it, I consider that I won another exchange.
“Here we have Nate essentially claiming Jupiter has no effect on the rotations other planet systems”
As usual, Bill informs me on what I supposedly believe.
But can’t quote me stating or implying any such thing.
What Jupiter’s gravity does NOT DO is affect babies, or tabletop mechanical devices on Earth.
Which was what Bill was suggesting:
“it is also true that is true for all real world rotations on an external axis as in the real everything is gravitationally affected by every object in the universe”
even Bob’s tabletop planetary simulator:
“and all the power sources driving most of this is simply the gravitational forces of other objects as is true with every object rotating on an external axis.”
And that ridiculous notion of his is what I was ridiculing.
Nate says:
”As usual, Bill informs me on what I supposedly believe.”
Nate back pedals from his comment below at the speed of light!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561343
When I say “gravity from Jupiter affects babies on Earth”
Just for the record, that was sarcasm. I do not think Jupiter’s gravity affects babies on Earth.
Bill reads that and concludes:
“Here we have Nate essentially claiming Jupiter has no effect on the rotations OTHER PLANET systems”
Most people do not confuse babies and planets, as Bill does.
Looks like Bill has everything sorted up here.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
“Looks like Bill has everything sorted up here.”
Sure, as long as you don’t read my posts, or those of any of his other opponents.
Seems to me he did Nate.
After you 100% backpedaled from this response terming it sarcasm:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1561343
you have not at all addressed the issue at all much less provide any rebuttal.
So exactly what was DREMT supposed to have read?
“After you 100% backpedaled from this response”
Not at all. My statement:
“Sure. And gravity from Jupiter affects babies being born on Earth, thus we need to consult the astrological charts carefully before conceiving, and later when choosing their spouse for them.
was obviously sarcasm. Are you really unable to tell, Bill?
And I’m not backpedaling from it, and there is no need to.
It said absolutely NOTHING about Jupiter’s effect on other planet’s rotations, which you FALSELY claimed I did.
So that’s the end of it.
OK fine Nate then I am supposed to take it you agree that the moons axial tilt and precessions are all related to forces of gravity from the various objects in the universe proportional to their gravitation influences.
I will also accept your sarcastic reply as a grudging acknowledgement you have no source to dispute that nor any alternative idea of why those are as they are.
“then I am supposed to take it you agree that the moons axial tilt and precessions are all related to forces of gravity from the various objects in the universe proportional to their gravitation influences.”
Axial tilt? No. Why?
Precession, of course.
Babies, no.
Gravity does what it does, which is not everything.
Again – looks like Bill has everything sorted up here.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Nate says:
then I am supposed to take it you agree that the moons axial tilt and precessions are all related to forces of gravity from the various objects in the universe proportional to their gravitation influences.
Axial tilt? No. Why?
————————–
Nate agrees precessions are. the sum of the precession of the axis is zero tilt.
Angle denier.
Observed properties that don’t fit your OPR narrative are ignored.
Axial precession is indeed due to interaction of spin angular momentum with gravity of the sun and other planets.
But you can’t have axial precession without an axis, a rotational axis.
You can have precession of an axis without axial tilt, which you can’t have without an axis, a rotational axis.
So the entire TMDNS notion, that the Moon has no spin on its axis, yet it has axial tilt, and axial precession is self contradictory.
I expect in response some high level handwaving to wish that away.
Nate says:
”Axial precession is indeed due to interaction of spin angular momentum with gravity of the sun and other planets.
But you cant have axial precession without an axis, a rotational axis.”
—————–
Yeah so what. The axis has no role in the OPR of the moon’s rotation. Its not an axle it lacks bearings and drive gears. Its purely an imaginary axis located by observing the motion of the moon. One can do the same for ANY rotation upon an external fixed axis making all your other myriad of complaints about the rotation not being a circle, not being connected by a rigid arm, etc. simply evidence you will throw anything at the wall to see if it will stick.
Nate says:
”You can have precession of an axis without axial tilt, which you cant have without an axis, a rotational axis.”
——————–
Thats crazy and illogical. How about a source? what am I missing here? Am I just peering into a huge gap in the logic of your thinking?
‘You can have’ should have been ‘You can’t have’ clearly.
So here yet another contradiction in the whole TMDNS narrative, and it simply dismissed as if it is not a contradiction at all.
-Axial tllt of the Moon is 6.7 degrees. That means is rotates in a plane that is tilted 6.7 degrees wrt its orbital plane.
-It’s orbital angular velocity is variable.
-It rotates around its tilted axis at a constant rate.
These facts are inconsistent with a model involving one rotation around a single external axis.
As are the others.
From reading Bill’s comments, it looks like the discussion has drifted outside the scope of points 1) – 4). Until “Spinner” can scrape together the integrity to argue against “Spinner”, this debate is going nowhere, overall. All “Spinners” need to agree on those four points, and since they disagree amongst themselves over them, the least they could do is resolve the disputes between themselves. No need to bring the “Non-Spinners” into it, at all.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Nate says:
”So here yet another contradiction in the whole TMDNS narrative, and it simply dismissed as if it is not a contradiction at all.”
No contradictions at all. We have been over this stuff I guess we can go over it again for the slow people in the room.
”-Axial tllt of the Moon is 6.7 degrees. That means is rotates in a plane that is tilted 6.7 degrees wrt its orbital plane.”
Caused as just pointed out by perturbations of other objects primarily the gas giants and venus that rotate around the sun and exert gravitational forces on the moons rotation.
”-Its orbital angular velocity is variable.”
Most rotating objects have variable angular velocity. So thats a non-starter.
Most rotating objects that change velocity require energy to do so and that affects angular momentum. In the case of the moon’s elliptical orbit angular momentum is constant.
”-It rotates around its tilted axis at a constant rate.”
Yes angular momentum of the moon is conserved and is constant but you can’t remove the ”r”value from angular momentum of an orbiting object without violating the conservation of angular momentum. You just want to play around with equations and pretend you can do that kind of stuff without a change in torque.
These facts are inconsistent with a model involving one rotation around a single external axis.
Just the opposite is true. If any of that changed you would not have a conservation of angular momentum. You would be the grand ignora-mus territory of perpetuum mobiles. . .changes in motion without changes in energy.
Remember Newton’s law. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. pull the ”r” value out of the equation for a rotation on an external axis and you have changed the energy of the orbital motion without complying with Newtons Law.
that fact establishes as fact, by Newtons Law and mathematics, DREMTs claim that orbital motion without spin is as the MOTL.
“These facts are inconsistent with a model involving one rotation around a single external axis.
Just the opposite is true. If any of that changed you would not have a conservation of angular momentum.”
Why? What does this even mean? It is a non-sequitur.
Again for the slow-drift-catchers, we have:
First off, a rigid-body-rotation is defined as all parts of the body move in concentric circles around an external point.
Concentric circles obviously lie in a single plane.
For the Moon we have:
a. Motion of the Moon’s COM on an elliptical path, in one plane, and a VARIABLE angular rate.
b. Rotation of the Moon’s orientation in a different plane, tilted 6.7 degrees to the first, at a CONSTANT angular rate.
One could try to pretend that (a) is rotation, even though it is non-circular.
But one cannot take a) and b), which are obviously two distinct motions, and jam them together and pass them off as one single rotation.
It just makes no sense, and it shows desperation to preserve a belief that runs against all the evidence.
“Remember Newtons law. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
And???
“Pull the r value out of the equation for a rotation on an external axis and you have changed the energy of the orbital motion without complying with Newtons Law.”
Nonsense.
Newton showed that his laws lead to elliptical orbits, with constant energy and constant angular momentum.
Nate says:
”Remember Newtons law. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
And???
”Pull the r value out of the equation for a rotation on an external axis and you have changed the energy of the orbital motion without complying with Newtons Law.”
Nonsense.
Newton showed that his laws lead to elliptical orbits, with constant energy and constant angular momentum.
——————–
Well Newton was smart enough to not proclaim that that spin and orbit are two separate motions occurring in the moon as he would know that would be a violation of his own law.
The proof is easy. We know that when you subtract a spin from an orbiting object that energy is added to the angular momentum of the moon’s orbit by increasing the radius of the rotation of the orbit. That is a conservation of energy.
So when you consider that spin as a separate motion from orbit in a tidally locked moon you are messing with the energy of the orbital angular momentum without an offsetting action.
I have shown you the math that demonstrates that fact and the logic of that fact is above. So you can’t remove the spin part of the equation from a rotation on an external axis without changing the distance of the center of the moon from its axis.
Thus its a violation of the law of conservation of energy to leave the moon with no torque flying straight through space and still have the barycenter in place. As we, non-spinners, have contended your view of the moon having separate orbit and spin motions just doesn’t hold up to the math. Lspin and Lorb are inseparable unless you have a change in energy that separates them.
Its like an amoeba its one thing until the amoeba absorbs energy and uses that energy to split into two amoeba.
“The proof is easy. We know that when you subtract a spin from an orbiting object that energy is added to the angular momentum of the moons orbit by increasing the radius of the rotation of the orbit. That is a conservation of energy.”
Bill,
This is like me saying to you:
‘Well Bill, the fiduciary of the profit margin is added to the LLC.’
It is mansplaining and gobbledegook.
Energy doesn’t EVER add to angular momentum. They are different variables with different units and different meanings.
You are thoroughly confused about what these quantities mean, and what to do with them.
Nate tries to con us that if you accelerate the ball on the string you increase the angular momentum but haven’t added any energy to the system.
Likewise, I suppose, if you decelerate the ball on the string you reduce the angular momentum and haven’t subtracted any energy from the system. Right? . . . no wrong!
Fact is Nate if you remove Lspin from the MOTL you have broken the torque arm that forces the moon to bend the moon around the earth.
You are left with a every different motion with less energy related to it than the original orbital motion.
“Nate tries to con us that if you accelerate the ball on the string you increase the angular momentum but havent added any energy to the system.”
False. Just pointing out that the more you mansplain physics, the more you get wrong and reveal your ignorance of this subject.
Clearly you think expertise has no value, unless it is your own.
“Fact is Nate if you remove Lspin from the MOTL you have broken the torque arm that forces the moon to bend the moon around the earth.”
This makes no sense. Lspin is not a source of torque.
And no torque is required to force the Moon to stay in orbit around the Earth.
TO get torque requires FORCES, such as tidal forces.
Nate says:
”This makes no sense. Lspin is not a source of torque.
And no torque is required to force the Moon to stay in orbit around the Earth.
TO get torque requires FORCES, such as tidal forces.”
Bingo! your inculcated view of lspin has conned you into believing that. thats not a physics argument as its a fallacious construction of an argument. as we have been saying since day one, prompting even the likes of nicola tesla to comment on it.
without lspin the moon travels straight and doesn’t have the gravitational moment arm attached that creates the tidal forces. you have been just sold a bill of goods by your inculcators and every argument you have raised against the nonspinner position are common to every object in the universe to various degrees.
your claim that celestial bodies and even the light from them is affected by these forces. they are so ubiquitous you take them for granted.
“without lspin the moon travels straight”
Hmmm. Makes little sense. Lspin affects only the Moon’s rotation on its axis.
Maybe you mean: without gravity, the Moon travels straight.
“and doesnt have the gravitational moment arm attached that creates the tidal forces.”
Uhhh, that also makes little sense.
There is no such thing as a ‘gravitational moment arm’. But as I said above gravity does create tidal forces.
“you have been just sold a bill of goods by your inculcators”
I have certainly been taught and learned physics. And teaching physics myself has given me good training in detecting BS laced with physics words, which is what you keep posting.
nate claims he qualifies for the physics teacher exemption that allows him to obfuscate all he likes. i will remind nate that tidal forces between earth and moon have existed for their entire existence.
binny van der klown…and why don’t you stop taking those nasty pills and going after a good guy like Christos, who is doing no one any harm?
I know I’m going to regret asking this, but the graph indicates a 0.9 deg C jump in temperature anomalies over about 7 months. So my question is, do the climate models predict that kind of spike? Is this kind of spike consistent with global warming theory? I’m genuinely asking. I am not on either side of the debate here.
On The Climate Brink, Zeke Hausfather updates how well global climate models simulate the extraordinary warmth of the last few months.
Bottom line: models have done a good job and there is no evidence of anything unexpected happening.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/global-temperatures-remain-consistent
A,
Well, who’d have thought “There are ways of selecting a subset of CMIP6 models consistent with assessed warming . . . “!
Gee, Zeke and his SkyDragon cult buddies have figured out that if you look through the output of more than 100 models, you can probably find one or two which allow you to write “observations remain broadly consistent with climate model projections . . .”.
Who values such nonsense?
People like you, that’s who! Gullible and easily led.
ark…modelers have brayed in the past about how extreme lows are predicted by models, now they are claiming extreme highs are also modeled. Sound like a lot of hot air.
Pete, to the GHE cult EVERYTHING is proof of their beliefs.
But the reality is this recent spike in temperatures is due to the El Niño combined with the HTE. Neither has ANYTHING to do with the cult nonsense.
But by thinking for yourself, you’ve identified as a Skeptic. The cult will hate you. Welcome to the club.
Climate models don’t predict weather. Climate models do have similar month to month variability as in global temperature, so occasional high peaks and low troughs are modeled, though the timing won’t be the same as in the real world.
Barry,
” . . . won’t be the same as the real world.” Exactly – completely useless.
Just like asserting that one megawatt of energy from ice can be used to warm a teaspoon of water. Or 300 W/m2 from a colder atmosphere can warm a hotter surface.
You might consider standing in front of a microwave antenna. You’ll get warmer while the antenna will not.
Ken,
You wrote –
“You might consider standing in front of a microwave antenna. Youll get warmer while the antenna will not.”
I have stood in front of many. I did not get warmer. What has this to do with a megawatt of energy from ice? Nothing?
You must be a SkyDragon cultist, denying reality, but not prepared to accept that you are gullible and easily led!
You might consider trying to describe the GHE in some way which agrees with reality – or you might realise that you would merely be wasting your time.
barry…how do you model highs and lows when you have no idea when they will occur?
How does a casino ensure a profit if it can’t predict every bet?
Come on, don’t be dense.
They ensure a profit by rigging the payouts and cheating the customer.
Is being dense a prerequisite for AGW ‘skeptics’ or what?
The weather is the bet, the climate is the odds.
The casino can’t predict individual bets, but it knows the odds will always return a profit, because that’s the law of large numbers.
Climate models can’t predict weather, they can project climate.
I look forward to the next obfuscation with disdain.
“rigging the payouts and cheating”
Tee hee hee!
That’s a good analogy barry. I’ll probably use that in the future myself.
One way I’ve explained it in the past is in reference to chaos theory. Climate is the attractors. Weather is the oscillations around the attractors. Climate models only predict the movement of the attractors. Weather models predict the oscillations around the attractors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
And if you actually understand insulation and the physics of GHG you will know that record highs will continue to diminish in long term records. But it seems many of the folks in here while recognizing insulation don’t really understand it.
Gill follows his role model and becomes Insulation King.
Well at least I have calculated and designed insulation systems for as part of the homes and other structures I have built and remodels I have done for a living many years ago. I don’t start imagining that insulation does something insulation doesn’t do.
Of course you did, and I’m a ninja.
Casinos ensure a profit by stacking the odds in their favour. Please refrain from referring to others as dense when you are even denser.
bdgwx,
A popular refrain a few years back was something like, “Climate stacks the odds, weather rolls the dice.”
AGW loads the dice to favour higher rolls.
barry says:
”AGW loads the dice to favour higher rolls.”
Indeed that is a claim of special interests.
It’s also corroborated by the vast consensus of scientific opinion. There is a non-political aspect to the view that ‘skeptics’ are forever trying to cast as political. Or self-interested.
It is special interests. Have you seen how much money is being poured into the institutions of those scientists for climate mitigation? I would say the opinions of those scientists have been bought and paid for and I have yet seen details of exactly how CO2 is supposed to be warming the planet. Have you seen any Barry?
Corroboration that 90%+ of the Earth science research community agreeing with AGW is only doing so to feather their own nests will not be forthcoming from you, Bill. You’ll just make such vacuous statements regardless of any serious evidence.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, the scientific basis for AGW has been presented for the last 30 years over and over, with research going back to the mid 1880s as evidence.
But hey, I guess Tyndall (1859), Arrhenius (1896), Callendar (1938-64), Plass (1956), Wanabe & Wetherald (1967) and Ramanathan and Coakley (1978) were all on the gravy train!
barry says:
”Corroboration that 90%+ of the Earth science research community agreeing with AGW is only doing so to feather their own nests will not be forthcoming from you, Bill.”
i never said there was any corroboration barry.
there doesn’t need to be any to be skeptical of non-independent science opinions. . .at least for those who are wise.
“i never said there was any corroboration”
Of course there isn’t. That’s why your remarks are vacuous.
Barry on cue comes in with his advice for the unwise.
Bill wastes no time substantiating his view. If he could be bothered he’d eventually drill down to say, “That’s just how people are“.
barry people will do virtually anything that is legal, especially if its in their interest. if you want advice always get it from a real professional. one bound by law to give you the best advice.
obviously if you need legal, medical, financial, engineering, even plumbing advice go to a licensed professional. if they lie to you you have recourse.
“recourse”
In science the recourses are many. Publishing and disseminating work through presentation, exposes the work to scrutiny by many, notably expert competitors.
Incorrect findings or fraudulent results will not be replicated, and thus not be accepted.
Get advice from an expert in the topic – excellent advice, Bill.
If only ‘skeptics’ would stick to that advice.
But instead they wave away the experts “special interest,” and refer to people who are not experts on the topic.
So you reckon the overwhelming consensus of opinion on AGW from Earth science researchers is about “special interests,” but not the other professions you listed.
Climate researchers are crooked. They’re more prone to it, I suppose, eh, Bill?
Nate says:
recourse
In science the recourses are many. Publishing and disseminating work through presentation, exposes the work to scrutiny by many, notably expert competitors.
Incorrect findings or fraudulent results will not be replicated, and thus not be accepted.
——————-
Politically that could take forever to do anything. Its hardly like having the right to go to court, file a suit, and have a due process procedure to right the situation and compensate you for your losses.
The process you describe has zero recourse, no compensation for damages, just the prospect of a political win at some random time in the future. recourse means justice and making whole. All you offer is a political process of correction. Obviously in the ‘hard’ sciences there is a designed replicable experiment to replicate. In soft ‘climate science’ its entirely an elitist approach. The Kingmakers word and zero independence from benefits that result from that word.
And all one has to do is follow this forum and see all the ridicule leveled at skeptics and those with other ideas all over a science no one has shown how to replicate. Instead is all about cherry picking answers out of the well of ignorance.
barry says:
Get advice from an expert in the topic excellent advice, Bill.
If only skeptics would stick to that advice.
——————–
Well first of all you misquoted me. I said get advice from a professional. A professional owes his clients a ‘duty’ and can’t tell the client to just due what is profitable for the professional.
So with that correction, yes get advice from somebody who legally owes you a duty and ignore everybody else.
Barry says:
”Climate researchers are crooked. Theyre more prone to it, I suppose, eh, Bill?”
I never said that Barry. I said that climate researchers like everybody else looks to see which side the bread is buttered on. Without any legal recourse there will never be any butter on one side. . . all the butter will be on the employer’s side of the bread. You libs think that only applies some of the time.
“Politically that could take forever to do anything. Its hardly like having the right to go to court, file a suit, and have a due process procedure to right the situation and compensate you for your losses.”
You think courts work quickly?!
Thankfully science doesnt require courts to determine the truth. And indeed getting at the scientific truth takes time.
It took about 30 y for quantum mechanics to be worked out and generally accepted.
Much longer for Copernicus’s or Darwin’s theories to be generally accepted.
Indeed Nate science is very slow in getting it right. That alone prevents adequate recourse for those harmed by bogus science claims.
And the courts don’t determine truth what they determine is compliance with the laws and the standards of common law.
Juries are used to find some truth. Not all cases go in front of juries. But they do often get involved when facts are uncertain, then its left up to the common man to determine if all the facts have been considered and the underlying evidence of truth. . . its not up to the accused or the accuser.
So in cases where truth is in doubt, expert witnesses are brought in by both sides to argue the case in front of a common man jury. The way it should work.
That doesn’t impinge in any way on the process of science. Scientists are free to come to their own conclusions. We are not talking about limiting free speech here. We are talking about recourse against those that harm others. Those who take action against others that cause harm when they should know better.
Bill, all through the Bush administration the message to climate researchers was to play down global warming. Same during the Howard government in Australia. So the incentive was there for climate researchers to toe the part line out of pure self-interest.
But they didn’t. They got told off but the message was consistent.
This has played out all over the world when governments have been anti-AGW.
So I’m sorry, the record doesn’t in any way support your jaundiced view that Earth scientists have been serving their own interests with AGW. The science has been consistent despite pressure to make it otherwise.
There’s little financial incentive researchers to promote AGW.
This notion of yours is vacuous, as I said. It’s just a reflex cynical view that applies wherever is convenient.
And let’s remind ourselves of what prompted you to jerk the knee.
barry: (A few years ago a statistical allusion was popular) “AGW loads the dice to favour higher rolls.”
Bill: “Indeed that is a claim of special interests.”
The prior discussion was about the nature of statistics WRT to forecasting climate v weather. You interrupted with this mindless bit of rhetoric that added nothing to the point of the discussion.
You’re a political animal, Bill.
pete…unvalidated models like climate models cannot predict. When expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, pointed that out to the IPCC, they were forced to change ‘predict’ to ‘project’. By project, they mean one of several ‘likely’ outcomes, much like betting at the casino.
BTW…the IPCC have their own convenient definition of ‘likely’, which is based more on opinion than fact.
Who told you that lie? ‘Projections’ was the language long before Vincent Gray became popular with ‘skeptics’.
God, the amount of straight out horse manure ‘skeptics’ come up with.
barry, compare that with your cult’s belief that ice cubes can boil water.
You’re so desperate….
Here comes Clint to squeal, “Look over there instead!”
And to do so with the same old lie.
Old dog can’t learn a new trick.
barry, please stop trolling.
That didn’t post- a lot aren’t.
Shorten it:
The Era Of Unquestioned And Unchallenged Climate Change Claims Is Over
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/11/04/the-era-of-unquestioned-and-unchallenged-climate-change-claims-is-over/#more-64823
–Several scientists who spoke with The Epoch Times expressed shock at the tactics used against those whose latest research is casting renewed doubts on the official climate narrative.
William Happer, Princeton professor emeritus of physics and former climate adviser to President Donald Trump, wasnt surprised by the response to the new findings.
Of course, the climate cult will be dismissive of any informationno matter how scientifically correctthat is politically incorrect, he told The Epoch Times, noting that the new findings made important and valid points.–
I wrote more, but mentioned a guy, Roy “disagree” with, mainly because he is “unprofessional” or crazy.
Which doesn’t include, Michael Mann, Gareth S. Jones, or Gavin Schmidt- rather, it’s other guy mentioned in article.
Go Willie, people will Soon see the fraud committed by climate alarmists.
Marcus House:
Yes! The official Starship flight timeline reveal, and FAA approves safety!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYjnv9pgVT0
Very interesting, ULA being sold. UK greater involvement with “Space Race. Which find more interesting after discussion of Musk and UK leadership {PM, Rishi Sunak} and including the audience involvement.
Assieland and US signed agreement and potential of countries near equator {Austrailia, India, and others} in launching rockets.
Marcus said race to the Moon is over, but race for the Moon has just begun.
Well, I never been a fan of the Moon, until about 1998 when the possibility mineable water in lunar regions was “discovered”.
And at this point, it seems we don’t know whether there is mineable water on the Moon.
Nor do we know if Mars has mineable water.
Mars certainly has a lot water, but probably has a lot gold also.
Mars water “could be” far more valuable then any Mars gold mined,
There could be 10 billion tons of lunar water in both lunar polar region, but it doesn’t mean there is any mineable water on the Moon- it seems “likely” but if we had known, there was mineable lunar water
in the Moon’s polar region 20 years ago, we would probably would started mining it, 10 years ago. And probably also already had several businesses going bankrupt failing to mine the water- but eventually more someone could make a lot money mining lunar water. But such company would probably make more money mining water in other parts of the solar system, including perhaps, Mars.
Or for me, the big thing about mineable lunar water, is starting market for water in space. There is lots of water in space, and the Moon could be a good place to start.
But another thing is, NASA should explore stuff, and the Moon is good place to start to explore for water in space, but NASA should then focus on the possibly habitable planet, called Mars. And explore lots of stuff, and one thing critical is finding mineable Mars water.
Or without mineable water, Mars is not habitable for humans.
bill h…”Pretty darned good demonstration of the futility of our efforts to reduce carbon. . .a 7% decrease since 1990 and 20% decrease since 2005″.
***
The humour there is that we humans only produce an alleged 4% of the entire allotment of CO2 emissions. This zero emission propaganda is inconveniencing and costing people over a reduction in CO2 emissions from 4% to 3.2%, and that figure is questionable.
The scary part is that the hooligan politicians actually believe the propaganda.
The scary part is that you don’t understand the problem.
Over a year all the natural CO2 emissions are absorbed. Apart from a small seasonal oscillation the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would naturally be expected to remain constant.
Only half of humanity’s CO2 emissions are absorbed, which is why our emissions have increased CO2 concentration by half since 1880.
There is still no evidence that CO2 causes climate to change.
The ab so rp ti on spectrum is saturated; it doesn’t matter how much CO2 is added to the atmosphere.
The problem for the sceptics is that they cannot explain how you can increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas without changing the climate.
And no, the a b s o r b t i o n spectrum is not saturated.
That’s no problem, Ent. But I noticed you specified “changing the climate”, rather than “warming the climate”. Tricky.
The more CO2 added to the atmosphere, the more Earth is cooled. Radiative gases emit to space. Non-radiative gases hold temperature.
You should know this stuff.
EM,
The atmosphere is chaotic. It always changes.
Remove the atmosphere, and it won’t change, obviously.
Changing any of its constituents won’t stop it changing.
You can’t even define the term “greenhouse gas” in any sensible way. The gases inside a greenhouse are the same as those outside it.
Are you trying to say that without the presence of certain gases in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would stop acting chaotically? Hopefully not, because even you are not that silly, are you?
“The atmosphere is chaotic. It always changes.”
Thankfully we have science, for those among us who appreciate what it can do, which is to understand and predict change.
Yep making progress from about a few hours in advance up to the 10 day forecast we get today. Science is great!
“In a hushed room of a museum in Washington, cameras and cell phones focus on a tiny piece of rock, no larger than a piece of gravel.
The fragment might seem insignificant, but it is a sample taken from the asteroid Bennu, which scientists are studying in the hope of discovering if asteroids actually brought the building blocks of life — carbon and water — to Earth.
Exhibited to the public on Friday for the first time at the Smithsonian in the US capital, the tiny stone is just visible inside its small capsule.
“This asteroid, now we know, has water crystals and carbon, two of the elements that produce ultimately life,” said NASA boss Bill Nelson, a few minutes before the curtain rose on the dedication ceremony.
The new space venture is “part of our quest to understand, to try to understand, who we are, what we are, where we are, in the vastness of this cosmos,” Nelson told journalists and space enthusiasts eager to whip out their cameras to snap an image of the rock fragment.”
…
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/In_US_capital_selfies_with_asteroid_hinting_at_Earths_origins_999.html
AGW denial is a lost cause. Might as well discuss politics…
The term empire does not accurately describe the structure and intentions of the United States.
The U.S. does not have formal colonies in the traditional sense and its global involvement is driven by its foreign policy objectives, such as spreading democracy or protecting its interests.
Anti-empire more closely describe the US people, but politicians elected, are suppose to get along with other nations.
But anti-empire in sense, that a lot empires crashing/failing, which could be blamed on the US during a period of time it’s been a significant nation on the international stage.
US might not be a blame, but there some justification for blaming the US.
An empire is a political entity that exerts dominance, economically, militarily, and politically, over various territories or nations through the acquisition and maintenance of colonies, dependencies, or client states.
Regardless, the U.S., due to its unique history and ideals, is the shining city on the hill. It fills a leadership role on the global stage responsible for upholding democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law.
Oh dear. The shining city on the hill is collapsing in on itself. The Hill is so riven by internal divisions that it struggles play a meaningful role in government and the next POTUS will be either a dotard or a crook.
How can you lead the world, upholding democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law, when you can’t even uphold those standards at home?
I detect jealousy in your tone.
If everybody loves you, you are not doing your job.
Being universally liked indicates a lack of effectiveness in a leadership role.
Making tough decisions and taking unpopular stances when necessary, does not align with the concept of leadership by consensus versus leadership by conviction.
Haters will hate.
It’s not a matter of love of jealousy. Its pragmatism.
You were unable to deter Russia from invading Ukraine.
You were unable to keep China from growing its soft power or expanding into the South China Sea. Look up the change in voting balance in the UN as countries which used to support the West now support China.
Your aircraft carriers are obsolete, unable to defend themselves against hypersonic missiles.
You internal politics can only be described as embarassing.
You are heavily in debt to China, who are about to overtake you as the largest world economy.
Alas, your glory days are over.
The Islamic hordes are already within the gates.
Dark ages are upon us.
Maybe its best that the cold is coming back soon.
Hopefully Mexico will let us in through the wall.
You better kill all the children of those you intend to kill, Kennui, otherwise one day they’ll grow up and they might hold a grudge against you. Confer to Machiavelli for more.
Perhaps you found the secret to the unification of the Arab world.
Entropic man, you are living/walking prοοf that it’s easier to fοοl a man than it is to convince him that he’s been fοοled.
Sometimes those looking at a state from outside have a clearer view than than those inside it.
When SHTF we’ll see who among those feeding you propaganda come to your defense.
This one’s dedicated to Entropic man. Words to live by!
https://youtu.be/s4JyrYtNRRc
“As a general matter I don’t take Beijing’s propaganda at face value.”
When was the last time the US of A came at the defense of anything else than a S&P 500 company, TYSON?
And not a Chinese propoganda site among them.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/by-gdp
https://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-world-most-powerful-militaries-2023-firepower-us-china-russia-2023-5?r=US&IR=T#1-the-us-25
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/abs/with-frenemies-like-these-rising-power-voting-behavior-in-the-un-general-assembly/C9A6D7F908B47E50B8B4C444C1884BA1
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/could-us-navy-aircraft-carrier-survive-hypersonic-missile-strike-169034
https://imgur.com/a/yBtgyXj
“You were unable to deter Russia from invading Ukraine.”
However Russia has been deterred effectively by NATO. No NATO country, even the tiniest ones on Russia’s border, has been invaded.
Thus Russia had to keep Ukraine out of NATO.
The End of the World Is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization
Ark, your political view is much closer to reality than your science.
AGW can be easily denied, even for those that don’t fully understand the physics. Most responsible adults realize ice cubes can NOT boil water.
We’ve already proven ice cubes can boil water.
Next.
Ken,
Acting the fool won’t help people to believe in a non-existent GHE.
Do you believe that you are powerful, wise, and respected, perhaps? Why should anyone believe you proclaiming that radiation from ice can warm water even a tiny bit, let alone boil it?
Stop being silly.
Who said anything about warming water with radiation from ice?
The claim by the anti-science nutters is that ice cubes can’t be used to boil water. Its clearly possible and video has been posted showing how.
Ken is one of those immature anonymous tr0lls that believes he can appear smart by being stoopid.
By accepting the 255K as an approximation, you accept the 255K or -18C to emit the impossible
240 W/m.
Because the generally accepted physics say so. They have averaged the incident on Earth solar flux over the entire planet surface and came out with the 240 W/m.
It is known, from our everyday’s practice, that a body does not emit the impossible high 240 W/m at the very low temperature of -18C.
In our homes, it is the fridges what produce to that very low temperature.
When outside in winter, at -18C, there it is a deadly cold, there is nowhere any 240 W/m emission to warm our bones a little bit.
*******
Nevertheless, they, the generally accepted physics, have derived (from the planetary average surface emission of 240 W/m), they have derived the 255K or -18C as the Earths without-atmosphere uniform surface temperature.
They call it the Earths effective temperature
(Te =255K).
*******
Yes, it is a rather crude approximation. It rather much depends on the assumption of albedo. If you use the current average albedo of (about) 0.3, you get the 255 K, if you use the albedo of the moon ~0.1 (rock, no water), you get about 274 K.
*******
But should’t be there an equation which is capable to theoretically calculate every planet’s and moon’s without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere, (Earth included), shouldn’t be there an equation which calculates the planet average (mean) surface temperature?
–
Shouldn’t there exist an equation which could do the job?
–
Yes, inevitably, there should be an equation theoretically calculating the planet average (mean) surface temperature.
–
–
There should be an equation which is valid for every planet and moon without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere (Earth included).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, the “255K” has NOTHING to do with real Earth. That is the calculated value for an imaginary sphere.
Uh they will defend it as the ”dumbed down” version for the general public.
The elites like to treat the public like a mushroom farm. Keep them in the dark and feed them shit.
You’re right, Gill. We’d need a dumber version for Sky Dragon cranks.
How about: “blankets keep you warmer”?
Its pretty hard to predict what the water blanket will do in the presence of CO2 above it since its phase change temperatures flex by up to 48C.
It’s not that hard to predict that cranks will switch to predictions after they complain about their inability to get a simple energy-balance model.
Obviously you have never worked in this area.
It’s obvious you’re just playing word games like an amateur.
Bill, when you posted “Obviously you have never worked in this area.” You could have stopped after the 5th word and it would still have been accurate.
Wanna bet, Anon?
BH and Anon,
That is an absurd argument. I’ve not worked in the area of predicting eclipses. That doesn’t mean that eclipses cannot be predicted.
If you want to make a claim about effect E not being predictable then do so using evidence and logic. Saying E is not predictable because person P does not have professional relevancy not only unconvincing, but it’s also absurd.
Sheesh bdgwx at least read the thread before saying something about it.
It seems it’s just that they are dumb.
The imaginary sphere is the ideal {word for impossible/magical/or not seen in the real world}, so the ideal thermally conductive {so more conductive than diamonds can be}, so Ideal thermally conductive black body {ideally absorbing and radiating piece of magic}:
The ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere which *must* be in a vacuum.
So we start from the end part, nobody is living in a vacuum.
Most of known universe is more or less in a vacuum.
And humans should want to live in the vacuum of this universe.
But we, so far, are too dumb to able to do this.
One thing we got to do is test artificial gravity.
Everyone assumes is very similar to gravity. So we have test to see how similar it is. And we also have test how to best make the best kind of artificial gravity.
Artificial gravity involves people getting sick from spinning and it’s sort of like riding a bicycle- seems sort impossible until you learn a few tricks. It still remains sort of impossible but you can do it.
So, what you don’t want to do, is make a very expensive and time consuming artificial gravity station. This is what NASA talks about endlessly and uselessly. NASA wants the public to pay tens to hundreds of billions of dollar in order to make an artificial gravity station which they have no clue how to make.
So, NASA spends decades sending crew into orbit and crew live in microgravity and high radiation environment and in mere 6 months manages to cripple and wreck the human bodies {in name of science}.
Of course people still like going into space, even if it makes them sick and crippled.
So I think one make artificial gravity station at the cost of around the launch cost- so around 100 million dollars.
Musk plans lower launch cost, but use the cheapest existing launch vehicle which is the Falcon Heavy.
Musk thinks Falcon Heavy is not cheap enough, and fighting fish and game, to be allowed to test the Starship. Once tested, then need a lot work to make Starship cheap enough. There other companies also trying to lower the launch cost, which also lower launch cost a lot.
Launch companies have been lower launch costs for decades, we past the $2000 per lb, and $1000 per lb {$2200 per kg] to LEO goal already, but the dream is $100 per kg.
So, shouldn’t wait for the $100 per kg launch cost in order to test
artificial gravity in space.
The main cost of artificial gravity station is to send crew to it- it could take as much as 1/2 dozen crew launches to it. But it should be noted private citizens are paying to go to orbit, and testing an artificial gravity station could be more fun than going to ISS.
If someone actually figures out how artifical gravity works it won’t cost anything to put stuff into space.
Chemical rockets would become obsolete.
I’m partial to building a Beanstalk.
“If someone actually figures out how artificial gravity works it wont cost anything to put stuff into space.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity
And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity
You seemed to be confusing artificial gravity with anti-gravity.
But,
“Anti-gravity (also known as non-gravitational field) is a hypothetical phenomenon of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity. It does not refer to either the lack of weight under gravity experienced in free fall or orbit, or to balancing the force of gravity with some other force, such as electromagnetism and aerodynamic lift. Anti-gravity is a recurring concept in science fiction. ”
Just that lack gravity doesn’t solve much even if it could be done.
Related to this is what is called gravity loss or gravity drag:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_loss
“For example, to reach a speed of 7.8 km/s in low Earth orbit requires a delta-v of between 9 and 10 km/s. The additional 1.5 to 2 km/s delta-v is due to gravity losses, steering losses and atmospheric drag.”
And atmospheric and steering losses are minor part of loss of “1.5 to 2 km/s delta-v” or gravity drag/loss is about 1.4 to 1.9 km per sec of delta-v. So with the impossible anti-gravity “thing” you would only gain 1.4 to 1.9 km/sec.
But big advantage is you don’t have acceleration so fast so people or things don’t experience 3 to 4 gees force while launching into space.
Or if you only when at say 100 mph constant speed to get to orbit, you would a huge amount gravity loss. Or major part of rocket design it limiting gravity loss to just “1.4 to 1.9 km per sec of delta-v” loss.
This a reason why a pipelauncher could be useful, a part of the idea is it would to reduce gravity loss. So if rocket starts at say 100 mph, it would significant lower gravity loss. Significant being about .5 km/sec less gravity lose {.5 km/sec = 1116 mph}.
So, assisted launch of rocket can reduce gravity loss, and one call them partially or fully “anti-gravity things”.
The moon has very little gravity loss, with Apollo the ascent stage had about 100 m/s or .1 km/sec of gravity loss. And Mars has around 500 m/s of gravity loss. But if left the Moon or Mars quite slowly-
{like something crazy like 1/10th of gee acceleration} you would then have a lot of gravity loss. And also applies also to landing slowly on the Moon or Mars, also.
attn Ken, just for fun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
Regarding “private citizens are paying to go to orbit”.
Interesting interview with everyday astronaut guy- who going to orbit the Moon, and a private citizen paying to go orbit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VP8GwnIYiY
Astronaut Training and Starship – With Jared Isaacman and Tim Dodd- NSF Live
Astronaut training with Migs and private spacesuits and lots of fun
stuff- and Starship
Iran’s Military Strategy & Power Projection – Drones, Proxies & Production under Sanctions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy95hMoMhrY
Perun
Five reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
Reason #5 — The bogus “CO2 insulates Earth”
From bogan Clint (g..e..r..a..n)
Is he the one with a PhD in physics?
Clint thinks there is a means by which a weakening in one polar vortex can be transferred to the other despite not overlapping temporally, so no.
False accusations ain’t science, Ant.
False attributions of cause, unsupported by evidence or even an attempt at explanation, are not science, Clint.
Clint’s message is loud and clear:
Science is bogus.
Clint R
I will ask for evidence for any of your “Reasons”. Everyone on this blog already knows you will provide zero (No Evidence, No Problem).
In your perspective, you believe that making points (without any supporting evidence) means they are true.
I will wait for the evidence of any of your Reason (1-5) but it will never be given.
He will instead resort to “you don’t understand science” without any attempt to show such understanding himself.
Norman, you seem to have your anal fixations under control. The therapy must be helping.
But sorry, as Ant mentioned, you wouldn’t understand the reasons. They involve science.
Clint R
Again with the diversion tactics. When any poster asks you to provide evidence you divert away.
Test me give me valid science for you reasons and then we can determine if I am unable to understand them. Also it does not get you out of the request for evidence.
Challenge for you. If you decide (which of course you will) not to provide any scientific evidence for you reasons then you will consider yourself a bogus poster. So you have options. Either you will be bogus (phony) or you will provide evidence. We already know the answer to this challenge. You will NOT provide any evidence at all and you will deny being bogus. So sad.
Norman, one of your problems is that you don’t understand science. REAL science is locked to reality. No reality, no science. In your cult, “science” is whatever you believe. Reality doesn’t matter. That ain’t science.
Another of your problems is you’re a child of the cult. You’re a whiney brat. If someone hits you with reality, you go into one of your meltdown rants, laced with insults, false accusations, and your anal fetishes.
So if you really want to face reality and learn some science, stop with the insults, false accusations, and childish behavior. IOW, GROW UP.
I’ll be waiting to help, but we both know what you will do….
Clint R
Totally expected. Just insult me but don’t provide evidence. Normal for you. I do not think you understand science at all. Science is an evidence based system of finding the Truth. It is not about making up claims and then insulting everyone who asks you to provide evidence.
I am not really the whiny individual you presume. I like rational thinking much better. It is not possible to do wo with you as you will not provide evidence and instead just insult my intellect and pretend you do did provide evidence (which you did not).
So let us see again, can you provide evidence to support your “reasons”? I do not think you will. So far you have not and nothing logically would suggest you can support any of your claims. It does not seem to matter with you. No Evidence, No Problem.
So Norman, if you really want to face reality and learn some science, stop with the insults, false accusations, and childish behavior. IOW, GROW UP.
I’ll be waiting to help, but we both know what you will do….
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1555845
Weekly ENSO update (week ending Nov 4):
1.2 … +2.2 (down 0.4)
..3 … +2.1 (up 0.1)
3.4 … +1.8 (up 0.2)
..4 … +1.4 (up 0.1)
October ENSO 3.4: +1.66
Aug-Sep-Oct SOI: +1.54
Grand Solar Minimum update
worth noting – The F10.7 cm radio flux has been declining since its peak 10 month ago
https://i.postimg.cc/rF6FDSY2/f10-7cm.jpg
Hmm, I am not guessing what F10.7 cm radio flux will be in Nov- just sunspot numbers- 90 to 110 for Nov, Oct was 99.4 in Oct.
But it “should” drop like spots, but safe guess is it goes sideways in Nov {like sunspots} but Dec and Jan I would guess gets a lot lower.
In terms my weather it only drops to 52 F, today, but forecasted to again get well below freezing, starting Wed to Sat then climb a bit above freezing- if you have much faith in forecasts many days into the future.
And I think it’s safe to say the Hurricane season is now over for the year. Nothing is now on my side or other side.
More from the “It’s T Sun Stpid” department
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/06/solving-the-climate-puzzle-the-suns-surprising-role/
good one, Eben. I was just trying to explain this to Phil J.
They are back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU9ZP07Q6ak
Gaza City Surrounded By Israeli Military
I haven’t been watching much, but I will try to watch it for a hour or so, and get some kind of summary of this war.
80% support Hammas.
I would say it like the support for Saddam, which was like +90%.
Or can’t trust the polling- and people don’t want to be murdered by the Hammas murders. So probably was 100% of the people who are still alive, and adjusted down to 80% number to seem more plausible.
A citation for that 80% figure would be nice.
One has to be careful in what one means by support.
I haven’t seen any recent polls but have seen dozens of Palestinians and other Arab nationals interviewed on TV and haven’t heard one yet call Hamas a terrorist organization nor condemn its actions. Thats 100% support in that poll. To outsiders Hamas is a Freedom Fighting Organization.
But when it comes to ”preferred policies” during recent elections Hamas only got about 57% support.
So its like when a Gabby Giffords or a Steve Scalise gets shot way over 80% of the other party condemns the action. So while a lot more than 20% of Palestinians favor other less confrontational strategies; when it comes to action with outsiders they unify in support.
> I havent seen any recent polls but
Thanks for your effort.
Anyone else?
“A citation for that 80% figure would be nice.”
It’s from the above “Gaza City Surrounded By Israeli Military”
but I don’t it’s correct and don’t think it’s fair to do such a poll and/or to publish it.
It seems the terrorist would terrorize the people living in Gaza.
It’s like taking a opinion poll of people living in North Korea.
The only thing vaguely interesting would questions like do North Korean believe in UFOs? Does the Dear Leader have special relationship with Space Aliens.
Or a question like, “Do you think people can be brainwashed?” could be somewhat, interesting/informative.
Try this:
https://tinyurl.com/not-very-popular
barry…”Who told you that lie? Projections was the language long before Vincent Gray became popular with skeptics”.
***
Barry, the ozzie ijit. It’s well documented that Vincent Grey got them to amend from prediction to projection.
The first report has 96 “project”:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_full_report.pdf
Willard,
Which do you prefer – meaningless predictions or meaningless projections?
Do you agree with the IPCC that it is not possible to predict future climate states, but it is certainly possible to project future climate states?
You are not making much sense, you know.
Any fool can predict or protect anything at all, as SkyDragon cultists are wont to do – again and again and again.
Mike Flynn
What are you braying about?
I prefer when Bordo says stuff.
He is saying stuff.
Cheers.
Gordon,
Willard beat me to it. I just checked the very first IPCC report from 1990. Yep, they used ‘projection’ for estimates of for global temperature. They also used it for estimating future emissions accumulation.
Like I said, ‘skeptics’ shovel out a lot of horse manure.
“It’s well documented that Vincent Grey got them to amend from prediction to projection.”
Excellent, Gordon, then you should have no trouble providing a reference for this claim. Let’s see it.
Aha, I think I found the source of your misconception – a blog comment, perhaps?
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/05/18/climate-models-accuracy/#comment-2060434
Which refers us to Vincent Gray’s short memo “Spinning the Climate.
https://www.climate.conscious.com.au/__documents/gray%20documents/SpinningThe%20Climate.pdf
The blog comment almost credits Gray with getting the IPCC to change “prediction” to “projection.”
“In tacit agreement with Dr. Gray, the IPCC changed the word ‘prediction’ to the term ‘projection’ but they did not do so consistently.”
“Tacit” agreement? Tacit means implied, not stated.
So we check the reference for this assertion – Gray’s short criticism of the IPCC and….
He doesn’t credit himself with the alleged ‘change’. But he does have a habit of musing (on other items) that perhaps he had an influence on other changes to the IPCC wording.
Chinese whispers in the skeptiverse lead to horse manure. Stop the press.
[BORDO] It’s well documented that Vincent Grey got them to amend from prediction to projection.
[VINCENT] they tend to prefer “projections”
Yup
Little Willy, barry, please stop trolling.
Projection is the correct word.
”Elsewhere in society for example, in military and financial planning scenario-based projections are widely used and it is understood (except perhaps by nave investors) that these are projections of what could happen and not predictions of what will happen. Although we might all wish we could provide reliable (and verified) predictions, the complexities of society and the climate are such that we are forced to rely on projections if we want to use our understanding to look forward into the future.”
https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/zine/archives/1-29/26/guest.html#:~:text=In%20contrast%20to%20a%20prediction,then%20that%22%20types%20of%20statements.
For example CPAs are prohibited from predicting but with adequate disclosure they can prepare projections. The problem with the IPCC is the political nature of it, its not beholding to adequate disclosure as there is no one to force it upon them.
Why not go to source?
“A potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the aid of a model. Unlike predictions, projections are conditional on assumptions concerning, for example, future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realised.”
Why do ‘skeptics’ not know basic stuff?
One of the variables that is used in climate scenarios is different emissions pathways, ie, strong mitigation, less mitigation, no mitigation (business as usual) of CO2 emissions.
This is climate 101 stuff. But in their desire to muddy the waters ‘skeptics’ avoid simple facts and definitions.
barry, please stop trolling.
nothing is posting…
christos…”By accepting the 255K as an approximation, you accept the 255K or -18C to emit the impossible 240 W/m”.
It is known, from our everydays practice, that a body does not emit the impossible high 240 W/m at the very low temperature of -18C”.
***
Science is being replaced with that kind of codswallop. S-B has been applied in areas where it makes no sense and does not belong.
part 2…
In relativity theory, which many are peddling to replace Newtonian theory, the second can change length as can the metre. Yet, the second is defined based on the rotation of the Earth and the metre is defined as a fraction of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole.
Both are fixed intervals of time and space yet Einstein amended the definitions to fit his strange theory. He got away with it because he is Einstein and none of his modern groopies can even begin to explain how fixed intervals can vary.
Whenever I raise the subject, Binny goes off the deep end, waves his arms furiously, and likely pulls his hair out. Yet he can offer no explanation as to how a second can change its length, or a metre, just because velocities get closer to the speed of light.
part 3…without url…
Same with S-B. It was derived in a temperature range from about 500C to 1500C and the T^4 relationship only applies in that range. It is blatantly obvious that ice cannot emit 315 w/m^2 yet S-B applied incorrectly tells us it can.
Here’s a calculator so you can test it for yourself. Enter 1 m^2, 0C, and ice and you get 306.2 watts emitted over the 1 m^2. Now enter blackbody and you get 315.66 watts. Enter concrete and you get 287.25 watts.
Now enter 3000C, which is about the temperature of a filament in a 100 watt bulb and you get an astounding 6,508,408 watts produced from a blackbody and 6,313,156 watts from ice. ??? Would the ice not have melted by then?
Ask Bindiclown how he powers the light bulbs by radiation from ice, maybe he will solve the mystery for you, but he is not telling me
Still waiting for Eben to explain how so many materials can abs.orb IR, with its low low energy photons.
Nate,
I’m still waiting for you to explain what happens to the photons emitted by ice which is totally submerged in water.
The water doesnt get hotter, does it?
So what happens to the photons emitted by the ice?
You haven’t a clue, have you? Go on, look it up on on the internet. Can’t find an answer?
Gee, are you stupid, or just hopelessly incompetent?
[sniggering]
What are the many materials that heat up when surrounded by colder objects ??? I have never seen one,
Are you that stup>id or what ???
swannie…that was one of your dumber comments. Who has actually gotten close enough to the Sun, with a thermometer, to verify S-B at solar temperatures? And even if you could get that close, how would you verify the average temperature?
Gordo’s comment didn’t appear after mine, not that that’s such a big thing.
But, to try to answer, consider that the effective radiating temperature of the Sun has been a settled value in physics for a very long time. Perhaps that’s because that value matches the spectral data for the Sun and is central to what’s called “color temperature” in rating the spectral characteristics of lighting sources.
nate…the only example of IR warming an object that comes to mind is a heat lamp for keeping food warm. However it is driven by an electrically heated filament in the range of 300 watts. I am not convinced it is the IR alone heating the food, I think the proximity of the lamp to the food at about 1 foot allow heat from the lamp to be convected to the food.
Brooders used to rear baby chickens can be heated by a 60 watt tungsten-filament light bulb. Obviously, it’s the heat given off by the lamp via convection that warms the brooder.
I don’t regard photons based on their energy level but by their frequency, intensity of power source, and proximity to the target. Obviously, IR photons are lower intensity than UV photons. Even at the distance of the Sun, UV has a far greater intensity than solar IR, but even that IR has many times the intensity of IR radiated from Earth’s surface.
The ability of any material to absorb IR has little to do with intensity and everything to do with the IR frequency. Even Einstein knew that in 1905 when he produced his photoelectric theory. If the electrons in the atoms making up the material like the frequency of the IR, they will respond. However, they don’t like frequencies emitted by lower temperature materials. That’s why radiation from ice won’t affect the electrons in warmer materials.
Gordo repeats his usual mantra about hotter bodies not absorbing thermal IR from lower temperature bodies. He’s clearly forgotten about my “Ice Plate” demonstration.
Swanson, I stopped at the second paragraph. You’re so ignorant you can’t get anything right: “…the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can not be transmitted from a body of lower temperature
to another body of higher temperature in thermodynamic situations”
WRONG. 2LoT is about “heat”, not energy. “Heat” is a specific form of energy that transfers from hot to cold. Your cult can’t understand the difference between energy, heat, and flux.
You can’t understand, and you can’t learn.
grammie clone continues to project his ignorance onto the rest of us:
https://www.thermal-engineering.org/what-is-radiation-heat-transfer-definition/
aha…it did not like the URL…
https://tinyurl.com/4fnsdd36
link for calculator..
Perhaps Gordo will study the link he presents, which includes a calculation of the effective temperature of the Sun based on the measured rate of energy received by the Earth at 1 AMU. The answer as calculated is 5776K. At that radiating temperature, the calculator gives a rate of emission of 63,113,157 w/m^2, about 10 times the rate calculated at 3000C. Don’t forget that iron melts at ~1200C (try standing next to a port in a blast furnace), titanium melts at 1670C and Tungsten at 3400C (6152F!).
Of course, Gordo’s comment about ice at 0C, ignores the fact that said ice both emits and receives thermal IR from the surrounding environment. If the ice receives more than that 315 w/m^2, it will exhibit melting, if less, it will cool below 0C. Basic engineering that.
Gordon, there’s nothing wrong with the S/B Law. The problem is with people that can’t. understand it. It would be hard to get ice to 3000C!
When children like Swanson and Norman constantly correct you, that should tell you something….
I have yet to see you (clint) offer a scientific rebuttal to anything I have claimed. I have explained clearly what is wrong with applying S-B at terrestrial temperatures and you have offered no scientific rebuttal.
I pointed out that it would be silly to get ice to 3000C, I guess your lack of comprehension prevented you getting that far. I was pointing out the idiocy of claiming ice can radiate 315 w/m^2 as calculated by S-B at terrestrial temperatures.
Seriously, you should restrict yourself to arguing with Norman.
What you don’t understand Gordon, is that you are Norman. You’re very similar to him, except you’re in your own cult. He’s in the GHE cult.
I no longer waste my time with people that can’t learn.
El Nino getting another strength booster from the winds:
http://mikeventrice.weebly.com/hovmollers.html
RSS AMSU 4.0 also has a record, around 1.3 deg C, but within this rounding error, it was the same 1.3 in Feb 2016.
LM, Glad to see that RSS has updated their data thru October. Of course, the February 2016 number was at the peak of the El Nino that year. We await the peak for this round of El Nino warmth.
Is that really you Lubos? So many impersonators these days. If it is you, glad to see you posting, we could use a good physicist around here. No ‘strings’ attached. Inside joke.
So all of a sudden you support string theory. Interesting.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Does human body at 36,6 oC = 310K, does human body emit the blackbody’s
524 W/m^2 ???
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s the body’s internal temperature. Typically skin temperature is less.
But, that’s an interesting question. The human body is warmer than it should be because of CO2.
Yes, that is sarcasm….
Emissivity of skin is 0.97 to 0.98, almost blackbody, and pigmentation makes little to no difference. Skin temperature at 25C room temp is about 34C, compared to core temperature of 37C. Of course, skin temperature will vary with environmental temperature.
christos…I think that power of radiation is ridiculous. According to S-B, ice emits 315 w/m^2 and the human body at 37C only emits 200 w/m^2 more.
Clearly there is something wrong. It is not possible to use the watt, a measure of mechanical energy, to measure radiation.
The inference is that ice, at 0C, can transfer an energy of 315 W/m^2 of energy to a nearby body. So, if you have a square of ice 1 metre square, you should be able to put a body above it that is 1 metre square and warm it from the ice.
Clearly, that does not happen and the watt is being used incorrectly. The HP is defined as 33,000 ft-pounds of force per minute. The HP in electrical terms is 746 watts. That means a watt is equivalent to (33,000 ft-lb/min)/(746 watts) = 44.2 ft-lb/min.
That is, radiation from a square metre of ice, if converted to power, should be able to do 44.2 ft-lb/min of work. Think of it, we could convert Antarctica, the Arctic, and Greenland into immense power generating plants.
A more accurate measure would be to use the calorie as the measure of heating. A calorie is defined as the amount of heat required to raise 1CC (or 1 gram) of water by 1C. Since 1 calorie is equivalent to 1.48 joules. the watt is defined as 1 joule/sec. Since 1 joule = 1/1.48 cal then the watt has to be 1/1.48 cal/sec = 0.68 cal/sec.
Going back to ice emitting 315 watts, that is 315 (0.68 cal/sec) = 214.2 calories/sec.
Anyone who has tried to lose weight by counting calories through exercise, knows the amount of work they have to do to produce 500 calories of heat, yet the suggestion here is that a square metre of ice can produce half that much work in the same amount of time while sitting there doing no work.
We need to re-examine the use of the watt to measure radiation and that applies especially to S-B used at terrestrial temperatures. It simply makes no sense. I accept that a certain amount of radiation applied to a surface can raise the temperature of that surface in certain instances, one being that the radiation source must be hotter than the receiving target. There are far too many variables, however, to make an exact statement about radiation.
Based on that, it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that ice can radiate 315 watts/m^2.
Gordon Robertson
When referring to calories used in food or weight loss calculations you have to realize that they are using kilo-calories. A number 1000 times as large as the scientific use (one gram of water one degree C). A kilo-calorie is the energy needed to raise one kilogram of water 1 degree C).
500 calories when used with humans or food are actually kilo-calories so the 500 calories given in your post would be equal to 500,000 scientific calories.
Here:
https://www.verywellfit.com/what-is-a-calorie-3432508#:~:text=A%20calorie%20is%20a%20measure,)%20are%20kilocalories%20(kcal).
Here’s Norman teaching Gordon! The blind leading the blind.
Neither knows that 1 cal = 4.187 Joules and 1 Cal = 4187 Joules
And neither understands the difference between “heat” and “flux”.
But both can sure clog up a blog.
Clint R
Now you are just trying to provoke me for your own amusement I suppose. When did I claim anything at all about the calorie to joule conversion. Gordon was using the scientific calorie in food use so I was letting him know food calories are kilocalories. Not sure what the purpose of your post was other then just provocation.
I am still wondering if you will ever provide evidence for you “reasons” above that make claims about issues being bogus. So far you have not done so. You have chosen to insult me instead and call me a “child.” Not sure why but if you think it is a good word to provoke someone I guess you can attempt it and see where it goes.
Problem is you are still the NO EVIDENCE, NO PROBLEM poster. You continue on berating other posters but you neglect to supply evidence for any of your claims. Why is that Clint R? Why do you make claims and offer zero evidence for them?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1555845
Clint R
No surprises with you. Just link to a previous meaningless post to avoid evidence.
It is obvious why you never provide evidence and divert away when someone asks you for it. You just make stuff up and pretend you know things. When caught in your game you run for the hills. You are the bogus one. Ever a phony making up false claims, not sure for who. Maybe you are KGB and you use this blog to see how gullible posters are. Then you use that information to destroy the USA by peddling false narratives that get people like Stephen P Anderson all wound up.
Norman, if you really want to face reality and learn some science, stop with the insults, false accusations, and childish behavior. IOW, GROW UP.
I’ll be waiting to help, but we both know what you will do….
Gordon,
“christosI think that power of radiation is ridiculous. According to S-B, ice emits 315 w/m^2 and the human body at 37C only emits 200 w/m^2 more.”
–
Thank you, Gordon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Not posting, make it shorter:
A definition of Greenhouse Effect:
–noun
noun: greenhouse effect; plural noun: greenhouse effects
the trapping of the sun’s warmth in a planet’s lower atmosphere, due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet’s surface.–
And:
The ocean is also transparent to sunlight.
One could say the heating of the Earth’s surface of ocean and land is also not mentioned in above definition.
That more than 70% of Earth surface is ocean is a important aspect.
That we currently in an Ice Age is relevant current issue related to Greenhouse effect.
Does it like this?:
So very important aspect of a definition of a greenhouse effect has
to do with ocean surface temperature which is about 17 C and the average land temperature of about 10 C.
And average temperature of the entire volume of the ocean which is about 3.5 C.
Or it’s bogus because it lacks important things.
That will have to do. Why didn’t post, and what it didn’t like,
I will leave for different time.
gb,
Try describing it first. Your definition seems to indicate that the GHE only occurs while the sun is shining, which seems a bit pointless.
The other problem is that the definition doesn’t actually state what happens to the surface temperature – say at night, or over four and a half billion years, where this “greater transparency” nonsense is exposed as an illusion.
Obviously, the GHE does not result in warming, or the surface would not have cooled from the molten state.
Where may the GHE be observed, measured, documented? What disprovable hypothesis has been proposed to explain this phenomenon? What experimental evidence exists to support such hypothesis?
Not so easy if you are trying to use semantics to produce a fact from imaginary wishful thinking. What is the GHE supposed to do? Can you defend your supposition with facts?
I doubt it, but feel free to try.
“gb,
Try describing it first. Your definition seems to indicate that the GHE only occurs while the sun is shining, which seems a bit pointless.”
The ocean has most of sunlight being absorbed in top 2 meters of the transparent ocean. Or very little is absorbed 1/2000th of the meters or in the top 1 mm of the ocean.
The land surface not being transparent has most the sunlight absorbed by the top 1 mm, and the heated top surface has both conductive and even convection heat transfer to below the 1 mm non transparent surface.
Above the surface of land, the heated surface has convectional heat transfer to the air above it {though if wet, evaporative heat transfer also]. The ocean also has convectional heat transfer, but it’s always wet, so mostly evaporative heat transfer.
Warm water has a pressure, partial water vapor pressure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water
And being in an Ice Age, Earth is drier. But even in warmer tropics, most clouds have ice particles or due to higher elevation have frozen water in the clouds.
And you have lapse rate, which due tiny droplet or frozen particle which constantly evaporating and condensing, but rest of world is pretty cold, and tropical ocean engine warms the rest of the world.
Most of Sunlight reaching Earth passes thru the transparent tropical ocean and is absorbed by the ocean.
Water has very high content, 2 meter of ocean surface has same heat content as the 10 tons of air per square meter.
gb,
You haven’t managed to describe the GHE. You haven”t even mentioned the GHE!
Now, you wrote – “Most of Sunlight reaching Earth passes thru the transparent tropical ocean and is absorbed by the ocean.”
Which heats up, with the hotter water sitting on top (it has no choice), where it promptly cools down at night.
The colder water sinks, the cycle repeats. The end result is that all deep bodies of water eventually have the densest water at the bottom – just above freezing, due to the peculiar properties of water. No silly “water cools at the Poles, moves around a spherical surface, up hill and down dales, finally accumulating at the Equator – where it just piles up, having nowhere else to go!”.
Your “description” of the GHE leaves a bit to be desired.
— Swenson says:
November 7, 2023 at 9:39 PM
gb,
You havent managed to describe the GHE. You havent even mentioned the GHE!
Now, you wrote Most of Sunlight reaching Earth passes thru the transparent tropical ocean and is absorbed by the ocean.
Which heats up, with the hotter water sitting on top (it has no choice), where it promptly cools down at night.–
There are big waves in ocean, most of time, well mixed.
Tropical ocean has thick slabs of warm water, and 30 C is not hot, and very rarely get to 30 C. But 30 C:
30 C 86 F 4.2455 31.8439 0.0419 Atm
14.7 psi x 0.0419 = 0.61593 psi pounds per square foot is times 144 =
88.69392 pounds per square foot and over a square km it really adds up. Holding down that evaporation with glass, is not really possible/practical.
gb,
Waves don’t “mix” heat into the depths. That’s just a figment of the imagination.
Wave motion consists of particles moving mostly up and down in place – up, then down, rather like a ball bouncing (sorry for the poor analogy). A somewhat elliptical locus in truth.
There are some who believe that ocean currents driven by the wind transport “heat” into the depths, but they are sadly mistaken. About as mistaken as those (like Trenberth) who believe that “heat” is hidden in the ocean depths!
SkyDragon cultists have some very weird ideas.
— Swenson says:
November 8, 2023 at 4:28 AM
gb,
Waves dont mix heat into the depths. Thats just a figment of the imagination.–
Well not the depths, that requires other processes other just ocean waves, but waves mix down to about 100 meter.
This is related to why I think floating breakwater needs to be submerged at least 10 meter under the waterline. But the 20 meter diameter floating breakwater which about 1 meter above the waterline, is about the potential of having serious waves, and creating serious wave for surfers.
One could make them only 16 meter in diameter, but you don’t get as good surfing waves.
gb,
Waves don’t mix water to any appreciable depth in the open ocean. (That’s a NOAA and NASA fantasy.)
Even if they did, warmer water promptly rises to the surface! And , of course, radiates energy to outer space – gone, lost forever – and cools, being then displaced by warmer water rising (or displacing warmer water as the colder sinks – take your pick).
“Even if they did, warmer water promptly rises to the surface! And , of course, radiates energy to outer space”
Most energy from sunlight is absorbed in top 2 meter of ocean tropical ocean water which powers the tropical heat engine which warms the rest of the world.
This global engine is another unmentioned greenhouse effect not found in the given in the above definition of greenhouse effect.
“The other problem is that the definition doesnt actually state what happens to the surface temperature say at night, or over four and a half billion years, where this greater transparency nonsense is exposed as an illusion.”
radiant heat goes in all direction and randomly. So a surface has radiation going in a hemispherical direction. Or most of it, goes sideways and very little goes directly upwards.
This why a small area which very hot doesn’t go far, because most of it, is going sideways. Though if say size of door, it will go further. A tree all in flames is feel quite hot at 50 meters- because it’s quite hot and quite big.
The Sun is also quite big and really hot. And sunlight is called direct sunlight and indirect sunlight {but even indirect sunlight is quite directed}.
In terms 4 1/2 billion years- we don’t know much about it.
Though I will bring up a point which people might disagree about.
It’s thought 1/2 the heat emitting from our hot Earth’s interior, is generated from radioactive decay. And most is from mantle rather than it’s very hot core.
Also to get more arguments, it is thought the Moon could causing Earth to be heated by portion- 1/2 radioactive decay, the other 1/2 from heat from formation and some of that from the Moon- no one sure how much.
gb,
You haven’t mentioned what happens at night, nor why the surface has cooled since it was molten.
Maybe you could mention the GHE in your explanation?
-gb,
You havent mentioned what happens at night, nor why the surface has cooled since it was molten.-
I have mentioned what Earth would like, if it didn’t the sun for few months.
My weather, indicates what happens at night. Let’s see:
It says, it’s at 52, and then 49, and then 45, and last number, 41 F
and goes down some more and then starts rising to 49 F {quickly after 6 to 7 am. But this day had high of 61 F and suppose to or predicted to be low of 38 F.
Of course I live in desert, which when dry, has wide swings in air temperature. And hasn’t rained in awhile. It was suppose to snow up in northern California in the mountains.
“Maybe you could mention the GHE in your explanation?”
Well I live in LA county but there are mountains between me and LA, it’s roughly the high desert somewhat close to hottest daytime officially measured Which was at Furnace Creek.
So a little bit isolated from the Ocean- but further East would be more isolated. I used to live in Torrance, where you didn’t have worry that your lemon tree would freeze to death.
If the average ocean was 4 C rather than 3.5 C, maybe a lemon tree wouldn’t freeze to death.
gb,
You wrote (I don’t know why) –
“If the average ocean was 4 C rather than 3.5 C, maybe a lemon tree wouldnt freeze to death.”
If my aunty had testicles, she would have been my uncle!
I assume lemon trees don’t freeze to death unless they freeze. Seems simple to me.
–If the average ocean was 4 C rather than 3.5 C, maybe a lemon tree wouldnt freeze to death.
If my aunty had testicles, she would have been my uncle!
I assume lemon trees dont freeze to death unless they freeze. Seems simple to me.–
The beets didn’t die, tomatoes, bean, water melon, and zucci did freeze death. I brought in lemon and mango sprout.
Anyways, average ocean temperature determines if in Ice Age.
And it’s a large part of greenhouse effect. Even a cold average 3.5 C ocean has greenhouse as compared to a colder ocean. Though not sure Earth has ever had ocean much colder than average of 3.5 C.
I would guess you need an ocean 2 C or colder to get the mythical Snowball Earth. But Earth with ocean of 2 C, would warmer than 1 C.
And mere months without the sun, does not change average ocean temperature by much- certainly, much less than .5 C colder.
gb,
You wrote –
“And its a large part of greenhouse effect.”
So what is this “greenhouse effect”, exactly? Are you saying that the GHE is really another name for average ocean temperatures, or just largely so?
It sounds as though you don’t really know, but don’t want to admit it.
There is no greenhouse effect, at least one that anybody can actually describe. Would you like to try, yourself? You might start with describing the role of the GHE in the surface having cooled from the molten state, and proceed from there.
Or you could just agree that you can’t actually describe the GHE in any way that agrees with reality, I suppose.
” Swenson says:
November 8, 2023 at 6:42 PM
gb,
You wrote
And its a large part of greenhouse effect.
So what is this greenhouse effect, exactly? Are you saying that the GHE is really another name for average ocean temperatures, or just largely so?
It sounds as though you dont really know, but dont want to admit it.”
I have been constantly saying the average ocean temperature is actually global surface temperature- and that global average surface air temperature is kind of like proxy.
Sea level rise and fall as long been regarded as a proxy for global
temperature.
But no one says it, like I do.
NASA and NOAA are close when say more than 90% of global warming is warming the 3.5 average temperature ocean.
Some have said the ocean ate their global warming homework.
Say it’s lost to the ocean. I would say gained by the ocean
Only Question I have is, how much more than 90% do they reckon it is? I would say it’s close to 99%.
The problem is, that other than the Milankovitch cycles- which are factor- no one really knows what causes glaciation periods and interglacial periods.
But I just point out obvious, the ocean surface is warmer than land surface, and gulf stream warms Europe.
As some old American diplomat said.
SpaceX Starship Launch: IFT-2 Flight Analyzed With BIG Surprises!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7GfZxFjTBI
He said James Webb telescope is in L-1, but it’s in L-2.
It’s actually in Earth/Sun L-2 or there is Earth/Moon L-2.
Or Earth has 10 L-points or two sets of 5 L-points.
The closest L-point is Earth/Moon L-1, it’s towards Earth by about 60,000 km. Or 60,000 km closer to Earth than the Moon’s distance.
Earth/Moon L-2 is about 60,000 km behind the Moon. Earth/Moon L-3 is on the opposite side of Moon’s orbit. Likewise Earth/Sun L-3 is on opposite side of the Sun at Earth orbital distance {1 AU} and is the furthest Earth’s L-point.
And L-4 and L-5, lead or follow the planet or Moon’s orbit by 60 degrees.
Anyways, Earth/Sun L-1 is about 1.5 million km closer to Sun than Earth is and Earth/Sun L-2 is 1.5 million km further from the Sun than Earth is.
Or, he was only off by 3 million km.
For wee willy and other doubters that Vincent Gray talked the IPCC into changing their claim of model predictions to model projections. The following refer to the preliminaries circa 1995 when they were disputing the meaning of model validation.
The following document reveals the outright corruption in the IPCC. Gray reveals how Santer was appointed after one review to re-write the report offered by 2500 reviewers to agree with the Summary, written by 50 Lead Authors. Gray also reveals how a report from reviewers was bypassed when they admitted there was no real proof that CO2 was warming the atmosphere.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110313140007/https://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gray2.ipcc%20spin.pdf
“I could claim a major improvement. The first draft of the 1995 Report had a Chapter 5 “Validation of Climate Models” as in the First Report. I pointed out that it was wrong since no climate model has ever been “validated”, and they did not even try to do so. They thereupon changed the word “Validation” to “Evaluation” no less that fifty times.
Perhaps I should explain what is meant by “validation”. It is a term used by computer engineers to describe the rigorous testing process that is necessary before a computer-based model can be put to use. It must include successful prediction over the entire range of circumstances for which it is required. Without this process it is impossible to find out whether the model is suitable for use or what levels of accuracy can be expected from it.
The IPCC has never even attempted this process, and they do not even discuss ways in which it may be carried out. As a result the models are worthless, and their possible inaccuracy is completely unknown. The IPCC has developed an elaborate procedure for covering up this deficiency which is well described in the IPCC document on “Guidance Notes for Lead Authors on Addressing Uncertainties”.
It includes attempts to “simulate” those past climate sequences where suitable adjustment of the uncertain parameters and equations in their models can be made to give an approximate fit, but they rely largely on the elaborate procedure for mobilizing the opinions of those who originate the models. Most of them depend financially on acceptance of the models, so their opinions are handicapped by their conflict of interest. The outcomes of the models are classified in the following levels of confidence;
Very High Confidence; At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct
High confidence. About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence About 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence. Less tha 1 out of 10 chance
These figures do not possess statistical significance as they are pure guesswork. As might be expected Low confidence and Very low confidence are extremely rare. In addition there are levels of Likelihood which take the place of predictions.
Virtually certain >99% probability of occurrence
Very likely >90% probability
Likely > 66% probability
About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely <33% probability
Very Unlikely <10% probability
Exceptionally Unlikely <1% probability
As before, you search very hard to find anything at all that is below Likely; and as before, the probability figures are pure guesswork and have no relationship to mathematical statistics. These procedures are merely an orchestrated litany of guesswork".
More by Vincent Gray on IPCC corruption.
https://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p155.pdf
[BORDO] Vincent Gray talked the IPCC into changing their claim of model predictions to model projections
[VINCENT] they tend to prefer “projections”
Weird Wee Willy,
Neither projections nor predictions are useful (apart from generating ongoing grant funding, I suppose).
Are you predicting or projecting that someone might be able to describe this GHE, which some dreamers claim exists? You do realise that firefighters are heavily insulated to try to keep them from getting too hot, don’t you?
You are definitely off with the fairies if you are trying to convince people of the existence of something that you can’t eve; describe!
Keep trying – it’s diverting to see you in action, twisting, turning, denying reality.
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Weird Wee Willy,
Neither projections nor predictions are useful (apart from generating ongoing grant funding, I suppose).
Are you predicting or projecting that someone might be able to describe this GHE, which some dreamers claim exists? You do realise that firefighters are heavily insulated to try to keep them from getting too hot, dont you?
You are definitely off with the fairies if you are trying to convince people of the existence of something that you cant eve; describe!
Keep trying it’s diverting to see you in action, twisting, turning, denying reality.
You “suppose,” Mike Flynn?
What are you braying about?
Suppose this –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Cheers.
Weird Wee Willy,
Neither projections nor predictions are useful (apart from generating ongoing grant funding, I suppose).
Are you predicting or projecting that someone might be able to describe this GHE, which some dreamers claim exists? You do realise that firefighters are heavily insulated to try to keep them from getting too hot, dont you?
You are definitely off with the fairies if you are trying to convince people of the existence of something that you cant eve; describe!
Keep trying its diverting to see you in action, twisting, turning, denying reality.
Presumably, you think that linking to Mike Flynn (who denies the existence of the GHE) will convince others of your vast intelligence?
Chuckle.
Why are you talking of yourself in the third person, Mike?
Here is you describing the greenhouse effect:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Go on.
Weird Wee Willy,
Neither projections nor predictions are useful (apart from generating ongoing grant funding, I suppose).
Are you predicting or projecting that someone might be able to describe this GHE, which some dreamers claim exists? You do realise that firefighters are heavily insulated to try to keep them from getting too hot, dont you?
You are definitely off with the fairies if you are trying to convince people of the existence of something that you cant eve; describe!
Keep trying its diverting to see you in action, twisting, turning, denying reality.
Presumably, you think that linking to Mike Flynn (who denies the existence of the GHE) will convince others of your vast intelligence?
Chuckle.
It is easier to show that you are a hypocrite, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
October data from both Copernicus and RSS are out. Like UAH, they continue to show unreasonably high monthly anomalies.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67332791
Oh dear, unreasonably high?
What do you say is reasonable?
For UAH, anomaly 0.25C. Recent months have exceed that by 0.65C
The equivalent surface datasets were running about 1.2C above pre-industrial.
This year promises to come in around anomaly 1. 43C and recent months have been as high as 1.7C above pre-industrial.
You will remember that 1.5 was set as a target because the Paris Agreement scientists and politicians agreed that this was the temperature at which our civilization would be significantly damaged.
Entropic man has been thoroughly brain washed , although in his case only light rinse was required
It makes perfect sense that various systems would record the combined effects of El Niño and HTE.
EM,
You still haven’t said what you think is “reasonable”.
I don’t share your childlike faith in “scientists and politicians”. Whether they agree on something or not is irrelevant, if they are denying reality.
Raised temperatures are due to civilisation. Civilisation creates waste – in this case heat. Better or worse than civilisation’s other physical waste, degradation? of the environment, species displacement , and so on?
You tell me. I rather enjoy my way of life. My guilt bag is a shrivelled up, desiccated, rarely used appendage, so don’t bother trying to fill it up.
Lol
Entropic man says:
”You will remember that 1.5 was set as a target because the Paris Agreement scientists and politicians agreed that this was the temperature at which our civilization would be significantly damaged.”
Well looking at my stock accounts the democrats haven’t yet been able to erase all the gains Trump made and looking back at the industrial revolution it looks like reversing that is what would be extremely damaging. That says alot about how smart those IPCC scientists and politicians are. My opinion is to just ignore them like ignoring a drunk bleating from atop a soap box in Pershing Square.
Perhaps you should discuss this with your insurance company.
They have become very unwilling to insure against floods and other extreme weather.
There was flooding in Downpatrick and Newry due to extreme rainfall recently and none of them had been able to get flood insurance.
Insurance companies are the best judges of financial damage due to climate change. They have to be, because their survival and profitability depend on accurate judgement and pricing of risk.
Entropic man says:
”Perhaps you should discuss this with your insurance company.
They have become very unwilling to insure against floods and other extreme weather.
There was flooding in Downpatrick and Newry due to extreme rainfall recently and none of them had been able to get flood insurance.”
nothing unusual about that. i have lived in high risk areas most of my life. opportunities to ensure always becomes difficult in the areas of disaster often for many years after. for example earthquake insurance in california has boiled down to a ”state” fair plan with large deductibles and limited coverage.
The weather is pissed at humanz , it can no longer be reasoned with
They say predictions are hard especially about the future, this is my prediction what the wind power generation will look like in the year 2100
https://i.postimg.cc/bwK3dqTp/meltedturbine.jpg
Five reasons why the GHE is bogus
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
Reason #5 — The bogus “CO2 insulates Earth”
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
The equation — F = 5.45 X ln(C/Co)
Where Co is the reference CO2 concentration is ppm, C is the current CO2 concentration in ppm, and F is the radiative forcing in W/m^2
The equation is bogus. It is an example of “curve fitting”, combined with a perversion of physics.
Baskin/Robbins is a chain of ice cream stores. The chain started about 1950, and now has about 8000 stores, worldwide. Let’s “curve fit” that growth and claim it is “heating the planet”.
F = ln(S/So) = ln(8000) = 8.99
Now, let’s simply add units of W/m^2,
F = 8.99 W/m^2
And that is now proof that ice cream stores are heating the planet!
Hint for children: That ain’t science.
Who said anything about warming water with radiation from ice?
The claim by the anti-science nutters is that ice cubes cant be used to boil water. Its clearly possible and video has been posted showing how.
Thanks Ken for another example that you’re clueless.
I could tell people how clueless you are, but they might not believe me. So your confirmations add to my credibility.
Ken,
Not if you are referring to water boiling due to a rise in temperature. It seems commonly accepted in scientific circles that the the boiling point of water is 100 C, or 212 F, and thermometers are calibrated thus.
You are playing semantic games, conflating a phenomenon which resembles one aspect of water boiling due to temperature, with a rise in temperature. A good illusion, but not a demonstration of the operation of a GHE which you can’t even describe!
Accept reality – as Dr Spencer is forced to admit, at least a large part of the supposed “global warming” seems due to anthropogenic heat. I’d go further, and say all of it is, but then the good Doctor will no doubt express disapproval, and say “Oh my!”.
Boiling point of water is 100 C at one standard atmosphere. You left out half of the information. Rather important information for anyone not living at sea level which is the only elevation where there is one standard atmosphere.
Semantic games? Not. You just make really bad assumptions. The ravening nutter has never made any statement regarding radiation from ice cubes to boil water. He only claims ice cubes can’t boil water and its a demonstrably false claim.
Ken,
No amount of radiation from ice can raise the temperature of even the tiniest amount of water.
No amount of radiation from a colder atmosphere can raise the temperature of a warmer object.
You cannot even describe the GHE, so diverting into silly semantic games in order to insinuate that it exists, is just silly.
The Earth’s surface is cooler now than four and a half billion years ago. The surface temperature falls every night.
Accept reality – if you can’t even describe this “GHE”, do you really expect people to believe anything you say? Mind you, there are millions and millions of Americans (for example), who will accept any rubbish they are presented with. If you are happy to be believed by such as those, good for you!
Your standards are pretty low.
Swenson says:
”Ken,
No amount of radiation from ice can raise the temperature of even the tiniest amount of water.”
Not strictly true Swenson. I this comment section I provided a source showing that water can be unfrozen at -48C so ice that was warmer could raise the temperature of that super-cooled water.
But I get your point. But I don’t think Ken does.
Bill,
You’re right of course. As a sensible person, you would be aware that finding supercooled water surrounded by warmer ice in a natural state s likely to be difficult.
But hey, who knows? All the molecules of gas surrounding you could suddenly all start travelling towards the centre of mass of your head at their present velocities – or the Earth might stop spinning, or Ken and his ilk might accept the reality that the Earth has actually cooled since the surface was molten – all of it!
Oh well, anybody who understands supercooled liquids is likely to understand my point, I hope.
Swenson, I first learned of the effect when wondering my bottles of costco water would not freeze in my office refrigerator which was one of those desk high ones with a freezer compartment right in the main refrigerator.
My IR thermometer was telling me the bottles were -8C with no signs of any ice in them. Taking them out of the freezer compartment they were completely liquid. I could make them instantly freeze by tapping the bottle on the top of the refrigerator.
Science knows of this phenomena but can’t explain it. There are other unknowns about water such as the Mpemba Effect. where warmer water freezes faster than colder water.
Also in Yosemite National Park there is an annual attraction in winter when certain waterfalls and creeks will instantly freeze leaving the water in the waterfall frozen in place. So it does occur naturally and doesn’t have to be engineered. Apparently one of the conditions for it is highly purified water as water with particle solids in it generally freeze sooner.
It is a natural effect. But I agree with your point. Warmer stuff doesn’t cool cooler stuff. You would think the stooges in here wouldn’t argue that point.
Hunter, as in any experiment, unusual results require more attention to details. What’s the emissivity of the surface of your water bottle? What’s the field of view of your LR thermometer, are you sensing the temperature of the walls of the frige? Did you check the temperature using an internal measure, such as a thermometer or thermocouple? What was the air temperature inside the fridge, using a shielded thermometer to be sure that you weren’t measuring the general IR environment?
Furthermore, COSTCO lists their Kirkland Signature Bottled Water as having “Proprietary mineral blend added to create Kirkland Signatures pure taste. Bottled using stat