Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2024 was +0.95 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up slightly from the February, 2024 anomaly of +0.93 deg. C, and setting a new high monthly anomaly record for the 1979-2024 satellite period.
New high temperature records were also set for the Southern Hemisphere (+0.88 deg. C, exceeding +0.86 deg. C in September, 2023) and the tropics (+1.34 deg. C, exceeding +1.27 deg. C in January, 2024). We are likely seeing the last of the El Nino excess warmth of the upper tropical ocean being transferred to the troposphere.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).
The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 14 months (record highs are in red):
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.13 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.09 | +0.17 | +0.00 | -0.10 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.17 | -0.13 | -1.43 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.26 | -0.03 | -0.37 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.40 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.07 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.88 | +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 | +0.63 |
| 2023 | Nov | +0.91 | +1.01 | +0.82 | +1.03 | +0.65 | +1.16 | +0.42 |
| 2023 | Dec | +0.83 | +0.93 | +0.73 | +1.08 | +1.26 | +0.26 | +0.85 |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.86 | +1.06 | +0.66 | +1.27 | -0.05 | +0.40 | +1.18 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.93 | +1.03 | +0.83 | +1.24 | +1.36 | +0.88 | +1.07 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.95 | +1.02 | +0.88 | +1.34 | +0.23 | +1.10 | +1.29 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for March, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days:
Lower Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
OK … now even I am wondering – a record when the land-based records have March down to about 0.7.
But still doesn’t go close to making up for all the underassessed anomalies.
Perhaps those surface temperature data use a different baseline? The UAH report here uses the 1991-2020 mean as the baseline.
I’ve converted those data sets to the UAH baseline.
Enjoyed the film https://vimeo.com/924719370
Look, It’s The Movie! It’s another example of carefully crafted political disinformation, as I pointed out last month.
Re:”The average, non-scientific viewer would swallow it hook-line-and-sinker, adding to the growing perception by the public that AGW is not a problem, indeed, a hoax manufactured to promote a one world semi-authoritarian (aka, Communist) government. Sad to say, theres no way for those of us who worry about the environment to counter such propaganda, once its out in the wild of the Internet.”
Could you explain how AGW is a problem. Given that warming is focused in the Arctic and in winter. I just see some gentle beneficial warming with elevated CO2 levels benefitting crop growth.
The warming is not “in winter”.
AA, To be sure, some areas with colder climates might welcome warmer temperatures during Winter. The flip side might be that the snow belts would move to the North in the NH, so those warmer nights might lead to increases in snow fall. The Arctic is known as a “snow desert” because it’s so dry that little snow falls.
And, There’s evidence that AGW is already having an impact on the THC in the GIN seas, which might cancel some of that warming for locations which now enjoy relative mild winters, such as Northern Europe. London, UK is at ~51N latitude, Edinburgh is at 56N and Stockholm, Sweden is at 60N. Compare their winters with Chicago at ~42N, Minneapolis at ~45N and Bismark, ND at 47N. If the THC stops, who do you think will be happy?
E. Swanson says:
”Look, Its The Movie! Its another example of carefully crafted political disinformation, as I pointed out last month.”
Apparently so carefully crafted you have no response to it. I have been asking for the so-called ”evidence” mentioned as non-existent by Dr. Richard Lindzen at 0:05:06. So far none the government toadies in here have managed to deliver a single snippet of evidence.
And as per Dr. Stephen Koonan at 0:04:05 he like myself ask the question ”what am I denying”. And the toadies in here have no response to that.
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Thanks Willard you are always so obliging as to providing a perfect response as an example of what I am talking about. Kudos to you.
Hunter notes a comment from Stephen Koonan in which he asked the question what am I denying?. Well, he DOES have a major part in the video, which is intent on denying the scientific background for AGW and he DID write a book about the issue, (which I recently read). Basically, he (and you) are denying the known scientific facts, such as the obvious decline in Arctic sea-ice at the end of the melt season.
What scientific background? Both Dr. William Happer; and Dr. Richard Lindzen says there is no science in the ipcc report supporting the IPCC conclusions.
Hunter guy, The Movie is a great example of politically motivated disinformation. Koonin and Happer are indeed both well respected experts in their fields and both also have experience in government. Clauser is also an expert in his field, so much so that he received the Noble Prize for his work in theoretical physics. He has only recently jumped into the public fray, vocally denying AGW. But, outside their fields of expertise, they are not experts, having not worked in the field, and their conclusions are debatable. Roy Spencer does appear, discussing his contention that much of the warming in the surface record is due to the Urban Heat Island combined with population growth. Lindzen, a meteorologist, blames the public alarm on the second and third sections of the IPCC report, but appears to accept what’s presented in WG 1.
But again, once The Movie is on the web, there’s little chance to confront them and challenge their conclusions or the presentation in the video.
Swanson your argument here boils down to ”opinions” not science cohesively documented and established. The wise man will recognize that when the experts don’t agree on the IPCC conclusions the science is not in any way settled.
So, Hunter guy must agree that when Clouser states:
that his opinion actually means nothing from a scientific point of view. So, what’s he doing in the video, except to provide an aura of veracity to this whole disinformation enterprise given that he received a Nobel Prize on work he did in 1972?
“Richard Lindzen says there is no science”
Does he actually say that?
Hard to believe. Given all the SCIENCE he discusses and references in his papers on the subject.
Nate he says there is no science that SUPPORT5 THE IPCC CONCLUSIONS. A great lie is one where 99% of the facts are true.
> there is no science
Step 1 – Pure Denial
Since there’s been no change in Arctic Sea Ice minimum, since 2014, care to tell us where this Arctic Amplificationis?
Hunter wrote:
The video is classic propaganda and should be called that. The comment is another version of the well known quote: Repeat a lie often enough and people will eventually come to believe it.
In this instance, it’s not just the facts which were presented, but also what is left out of the narrative. There’s no mention of the massive changes in the Arctic sea-ice cycle or the effects of volcanic eruptions during the so-called Little Ice Age. Roy Spencer speaks of their work with satellite instruments, but their graphic results only appear within a quick shot of a computer screen. The comments toward the end regarding various biases in the scientific community, particularly the IPCC, is just another effort to discredit the still evolving scientific understanding of the climate of our Earth.
Since Artic Sea Ice has been dropping somewhat steadily since 1980:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice
could you please explain why you cherry picked 2014?
E. Swanson says:
”The comments toward the end regarding various biases in the scientific community, particularly the IPCC, is just another effort to discredit the still evolving scientific understanding of the climate of our Earth.”
Poppycock!
When the science is honestly settled no such disagreement is seen between experts.
Hunter guy wrote:
I have trouble with that. There are so many pieces to the puzzle that there will always be some one (or group) that disagrees with the latest conclusions (call it consensus?). This is especially true as there are different interests and levels of understanding, plus there’s always new information to put into the mix. Then too, there’s the here-and-now economic reality that we are all addicted to fossil fuels which offer some small fraction of humanity vast wealth.
Don’t forget, we are discussing a video which is clearly distorting what is known about the situation. While the individuals quoted may not intend to distort, the overall result is disinformation. It’s not about science, it’s a propaganda piece, pure and simple.
As I said you point of view is pure propaganda and poppycock at that.
And what the heck does this have to do with anything climate?
Swanson says: ”Then too, theres the here-and-now economic reality that we are all addicted to fossil fuels which offer some small fraction of humanity vast wealth.”
Obviously you are mostly concerned about the ”political climate” as you obviously are with ”political science”.
Fact is there is no scientific evidence that supports the IPCC conclusions. . .those conclusions are political based and involves a lot of people whose livelihoods are connected directly to how politically successful they are are in selling non-science as a science. As I see it I see these people wagering on science and like any gambleholic it is more likely to do more damage to science family than it is likely to benefit that family.
“Fact is there is no scientific evidence”
Bill must be a newcomer here!
This is called ‘dichotomous thinking’. Describing a continuum as if it is one thing or another.
Deniers tend to have this mental defect.
Nate continues to lie by implying he has provided science that establishes the IPCC conclusions. But Nate has zero credibility. . .
I will continue to rely on the real experts who have been in the field longer than this has been a political issue making so-called super stars out of youngsters willing to strain the science using only mathematics and models that have yet to be validated.
Gill will continue to pretend that his gurus produced evidence and that he looked at it.
LOL
Willard makes a desperate attempt to build a strawman. . .as like Nate he has no evidence that supports the IPCC conclusions.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
Hunter wrote some stuff, including:
To be sure, that’s what the video claims, but the video is so full of distortions that someone who has studied the science would find it difficult to agree. To be sure, there are areas if the investigations which exhibit uncertainties, which the IPCC clearly acknowledges, but that does not invalidate the overall conclusions.
However, the video does not prove your statement. The presentations at the end repeat old claims of bias in the scientific efforts to understand the problem. The people featured in the video have long histories of disagreeing with other scientists involved with the problem, but that does not prove them right. That you present it proves you have an agenda, which has been obvious for some time.
Any serious discussion of the video would start by identifying who wrote the script for the video, who were the advisors and who paid for it. The US in the midst of a Presidential campaign where one candidate says “Drill, Baby, Drill” and the other is promoting the transition to renewable, low carbon energy sources. Some of the speakers might be quite happy to serve in an administration of the former, so their self promotion stands out.
UPDATE: Martin Dirkin is listed as the Writer/Director in the movie’s credits. There’s no list of advisers who played a role in the writing of the script or any information regarding the source(s) of funding.
“Nate continues to lie by implying he has provided science that establishes the IPCC conclusions.”
Sure, all those lengthy discussions with Bill involved NO science, NONE, claims Bill.
Proving that there is no point to discussing anything with Bill. He is unable to retain/recall any of it.
“But Nate has zero credibility”
Bill definitely has the dichotomous thinking mental defect.
Unvalidated models and theories aren’t science Nate. They are nothing but the imaginations of scientists. Some scientists disagree that this imaginary science supports the conclusions of the IPCC. Get over it.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
“Unvalidated models and theories arent science Nate.”
FYI Bill is a retired auditor who feels empowered to knee-jerk malign science when it doesnt fit his political agenda.
So we can all file his opinions where they belong, in the round file.
He shamelessly ‘forgets’ that theories and models are built upon earlier observations and experiments.
And he shamelessly ‘forgets’ all the lengthy discussion of DATA, and observations that largely agree with predictions of theory and models.
Proving again, there is no point to discussing anything with Bill.
“Some scientists disagree that this imaginary science supports the conclusions of the IPCC. Get over it.”
In the mind of a dichotomous thinker like Bill, the tiny number of outlier views of the science morphs into:
“Fact is there is no scientific evidence”
Nate says:
” ”Some scientists disagree that this imaginary science supports the conclusions of the IPCC. Get over it.”
In the mind of a dichotomous thinker like Bill, the tiny number of outlier views of the science morphs into:
”Fact is there is no scientific evidence”
———————-
Here is a perfect example of what a liar Nate is. He has taken a quote of the eminent Dr. Richard Lindzen and morphed it into a claim I never made that ”there is no scientific evidence”.
Fact is there is a lot of scientific evidence about climate but none of it establishes how much warming is due to human emissions. When challenged Nate merely points to computer models, garbage in garbage out, as the scientific evidence. But these models haven’t proven to be predictive.
“a claim I never made that ‘there is no scientific evidence’.”
You said it right here, Bill.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1660954
Whoops!
Looks like Gill just bugged out.
He must have been saying stuff once again.
Nate says:
”You said it right here, Bill.
Whoops!”
Nope! I said: ”Fact is there is no scientific evidence that supports the IPCC conclusions.”
And that was in discussion of the ”movie” where Dr. Richard Lindzen said that. . .and nobody has disputed it.
Bill is being ridiculous as usual.
He again shamelessly implies that I lied about his quote
“a claim I never made that ‘there is no scientific evidence’
So I give him the quote
“You said it right here, Bill.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1660954”
His response:
“Nope! I said: Fact is there is no scientific evidence that supports the IPCC conclusions.”
As if everyone doesn’t know that we were talking about ‘evidence that supports the IPCC conclusions’.
But prior to that he quotes me quoting him saying “Fact is there is no scientific evidence”
Then made it clear that he KNEW what I mean by it, “Nate continues to lie by implying he has provided science that establishes the IPCC conclusions”
So clearly I am not lying about what Bill was trying to say, and said, and I quoted him.
But he will continue to shamelessly whine about me lying.
But you aren’t going to take on Dr Richard Lindzen who is the source of the quote that the scientific evidence does NOT support the IPCC conclusions because you are completely and absolutely unqualified to do so.
“But you arent going to take on Dr Richard Lindzen who is the source of the quote that the scientific evidence does NOT support the IPCC conclusions because you are completely and absolutely unqualified to do so.”
Thats called appeal to authority Bill.
As if he has the last word on the subject!
Nate nobody has refuted him. Folks refuse to debate him. He wins by no contest.
I have asked you to refute him and you fell flat on your face and only had models and conditional assessments of model results to show. That’s nothing. It can’t be considered scientific support. I my field we send that stuff back for more work.
> I have asked you to refute him
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Bill, as a contrarian, you seem to feel that the opinions of outlier contrarian scientists should be weighted much more than all others, and they should get the last word.
But that aint how science works.
Lindzen’s a theorist, and his theories have been tested, and have fallen short of agreeing with observations.
“The idea of the iris effect of cirrus clouds in trapping outgoing radiation was reasonable, but it ignored the larger compensating effect on the blocking of incoming sun’s rays, and effects of changes in altitude of clouds.[2]: 92 [3] Moreover, a number of errors were found in the papers.[4][5] For this reason, the iris effect no longer plays a role in the current scientific consensus on climate change.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis
But as a contrarian, you will ignore this history.
The current scientific consensus on climate change is corrupt. . .run not by scientists but by scores of billion dollar corporations who9 have unprecedented and corrupt access to government funding.
It can be as readily discarded as you would discard the opinions of Exxon Mobil.
“The current scientific consensus on climate change is corrupt. . .run not by scientists but by scores of billion dollar corporations who9 have unprecedented and corrupt access to government funding.”
So not able to support the claim that ‘there is no scientific evidence to support the IPCC..”
And not able to support the claim that one contrarian scientist views trump all others,
we now move on to declaring that all the OTHER scientists certainly must be corrupt. Why? Because all the big bucks academic scientists are getting paid requires it?!
Of course his hero Lindzen is one of them ($$ from Coal corporations)
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen#:~:text=Lindzen%20(%20b.,interests%2C%20such%20as%20Peabody%20Coal.
But somehow his, and only his, views must be uncorruptable!
“In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he’d be willing to bet that the earth’s climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today.”
He was prescient, huh? Tee hee hee.
“When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. “There isn’t much money in climate science and I’m still looking for that gold watch at retirement,” Annan says. “A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension.”[12]”
Nate says:
”So not able to support the claim that there is no scientific evidence to support the IPCC..
And not able to support the claim that one contrarian scientist views trump all others”
———————
It trumps all others because it is up to the others to provide the science of how the GHE works. Obviously if its not there one cannot show where it is.
You have been asked to do that and you fell flat on your face trying.
Nate says:
Of course his hero Lindzen is one of them ($$ from Coal corporations)
But somehow his, and only his, views must be uncorruptable!
————————–
Well I built a career on uncovering corruption. Yes anybody is corruptible and its almost always linked to employee relationship with an up and comer or vast amounts of payola and control over ones career in relationship to the reputation of the person of concern. Guy coming out of college being made into folk heroes on the back of single thesis are typically the most corrupted. Old times who have built solid reputations over many decades are the least corruptible. In any case you haven’t made any kind of case for that. Getting an expert witness fee hardly is ground for the corruption of a person with a celebrated reputation. That doesn’t mean they won’t slant their testimony somewhat on a particular day. . .but it is highly unlikely one would do so pro bono after having built a reputation over many decades. Employment were the career path is smoothed by the employer has far more control and persons new with just a few years of experience the most manipulable. Its human nature, thus one should not simply believe anybody. One needs to look at what lack of independence the person has and their lifetime of credentials which persons who have built a reputation as an expert isn’t going to sacrifice it for a fee so big as to outweigh their reputation.
Thats why its so unimpressive that somebody may have been hired as an expert witness and that’s why they think what they think.
Nate says:
April 15, 2024 at 12:01 PM
In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying hed be willing to bet that the earths climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today.
He was prescient, huh? Tee hee hee.
————————-
I am of the opinion nobody can predict the climate.
”When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout.”
50 to one sounds about right. climate is complex with many drivers and feedbacks thought to last thousands of years if nothing else changes. . . but of course changes do occur regularly. . .but are any dominant? Like Dr. Akasofu he laid out two climate length cycles imposed on one another. Not bad but its probably more than two.
Even the IPCC is gradually coming around. They don’t want to attribute more than half the warming seen to CO2 and thats probably because more than half the scientists work for institutions that profit from CO2. Of course they are under a lot of pressure when you consider the temperature record isn’t keeping up with theory.
“It trumps all others because it is up to the others to provide the science of how the GHE works. Obviously if its not there one cannot show where it is.”
Nah, even Lindzen understands the GHE.
If you still don’t, after all the discussions and papers, then that’s not a problem for science to solve.
That’s a YOU problem.
It trumps all others only for someone like you who filters facts according to whether they support and confirm your political biases and contrarian beliefs.
“Well I built a career on uncovering corruption.”
Well that may be, Bill, but you cannot rest on your laurels to convict, in this case, all these scientists of corruption. You have to have real evidence to support your feelings.
And you dont have it. You are just ranting.
“I am of the opinion nobody can predict the climate.”
Yes Bill, it is clear that nobody on your side of the issue seems to be able to predict the climate, without including the increasing GHE, which of course you are required to reject.
Nate says:
”Nah, even Lindzen understands the GHE.”
Nope you are lying again you just claimed at 12:01pm he didn’t. You are all over the place like a soup sandwich. Totally unreliable and undisciplined in what you say as you flop from one side to the other.
Nate says:
”Well that may be, Bill, but you cannot rest on your laurels to convict, in this case, all these scientists of corruption. You have to have real evidence to support your feelings. And you dont have it. You are just ranting. ”
The point wasn’t to convict Nate. The point is if you are going to believe without understanding (as obviously you do about climate change) one should rely on an independent source. A source doesn’t lack independence because of some time in the past having accepted a modest fee for providing expert testimony. But one does lack independence when currently being employed by an interested entity. Corruption in government has always been endemic. All one can do is minimize it by not farming out work and budgeting decisions to the employees of entities that do profit from the advice. If you don’t understand why, which obviously you don’t from what you said above, you are an ignorant man.
Nate says:
”Yes Bill, it is clear that nobody on your side of the issue seems to be able to predict the climate, without including the increasing GHE, which of course you are required to reject.”
Its also obvious nobody your side can either.
“one should rely on an independent source.”
That sure isn’t Lindzen! As noted above (Coal funding).
You have no basis for declaring all non-contrarian climate scientists to be corrupt. That is quite lame.
You have no basis for saying that ONLY the opinions of contrarian scientists, like Lindzen, are correct.
If you were being honest, you would simply admit that, politically, you prefer that AGW is wrong.
And that’s all there is to it.
Nah, even Lindzen understands the GHE.
Nope you are lying again you just claimed at 12:01pm he didnt.”
Nope. As usual you just made that up.
Nate says:
”one should rely on an independent source.”
That sure isnt Lindzen! As noted above (Coal funding).
——————————-
Influence is created via employment, continued funding, large sums, and future promises of employment by non-independent entities where significant revenue is contingent. Your penny-ante standard you are setting above pretty much would condemn everybody in climate science. If you want to go there then I can ask again where the science is rather than on whose authority you believe the science exists. And you will once again fall on your face.
Nate says:
”You have no basis for declaring all non-contrarian climate scientists to be corrupt. That is quite lame.”
Did I? No I did not. I am talking about the bias of non-independent institutions and how that bias motivates employees to look for ways to please the boss. . .not to talk about the gate keeping for publication revealed repetitively such as in the climategate emails. The system is about a corrupt as it can be, thats where one should rely more heavily on those not beholding to the system.
Nate says:
”You have no basis for saying that ONLY the opinions of contrarian scientists, like Lindzen, are correct.”
Strawman I never said any such thing.
Nate says:
”If you were being honest, you would simply admit that, politically, you prefer that AGW is wrong.
And thats all there is to it.”
I prefer freedom over fiat. I prefer science over myth. You can’t say I have not sought out the science. You don’t have it. Thus yes I prefer freedom when the consequences of that freedom is unknown.
Nate says:
”Nah, even Lindzen understands the GHE.
Nope you are lying again you just claimed at 12:01pm he didnt.
Nope. As usual you just made that up.”
No I didn’t. You even quote the time on the 15th in this subthread when you said Lindzen’s climate predictions were wrong. How can he understand your myth, the myth be science, and Lindzen be wrong?
“Nah, even Lindzen understands the GHE.
Nope you are lying again you just claimed at 12:01pm he didnt.
Nope. As usual you just made that up.
No I didnt. You even quote the time on the 15th in this subthread when you said Lindzens climate predictions were wrong. ”
Saying his prediction of global T over 20 y was wrong is not equivalent to or even a contradiction of his understanding the GHE!
Do you have an ongoing mental deficiency? It certainly seems to be the case.
Nate says:
”Saying his prediction of global T over 20 y was wrong is not equivalent to or even a contradiction of his understanding the GHE!
Do you have an ongoing mental deficiency? It certainly seems to be the case.”
Understanding a changing GHE and why it changes is part and parcel to understanding the GHE Nate. Your claim that it isn’t necessary probably explains your own ignorant statements about it as well.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
I always get *my* climate views from the director of “Dr Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation.”
Tatiana? Russian? Did she get a showing in Trump’s pee-pee tapes?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
I had really expected temperatures to start to fall this month. Will be interesting to see how this compares to the surface data sets.
This beats the old March record, set in 2016 by 0.3C, which in turn was about 0.3C warmer than the other contenders.
Top ten warmest March Anomalies in UAH history.
1 2024 0.95
2 2016 0.65
3 2010 0.38
4 2020 0.35
5 1998 0.34
6 2004 0.22
7 2019 0.22
8 2023 0.20
9 2017 0.18
10 2018 0.16
That makes 9 months in a row that have been the record for that month.
My simplistic prediction for the year, based on just the first three months, has now risen to 0.69 +/- 0.20, with a 96% chance of it being a record.
For the record, this is not something I trust, and I’m sure the temperatures will be dropping before the end of the year.
UAH by ENSO season (July-June):
Warmest
1. 2023-24 +0.85 (9 months)
2. 2019-20 +0.38
3. 2015-16 +0.34
4. 2016-17 +0.25
5. 2022-23 +0.218
6. 1997-98 +0.215
7. 2017-18 +0.21
8. 2020-21 +0.20
9. 2018-19 +0.173
10. 2021-22 +0.169
ALL of the past nine years, plus 97-98.
.
.
.
Coldest
1. 1984-85 -0.453
2. 1992-93 -0.452
3. 1985-86 -0.42
4. 1981-82 -0.34
5. 1982-83 -0.30
6. 1991-92 -0.2883
7. 1983-84 -0.2875
8. 1988-89 -0.28
9. 1993-94 -0.26
10. 1980-81 -0.2442 (eq)
10. 1986-87 -0.2442 (eq)
8 of the first ten years, plus three Pinatubo-affected years.
Linear trend over entire record: +0.148C/decade
Linear trend over
Last 10 years: +0.294C/decade
Last 15 years: +0.326C/decade
Last 20 years: +0.264C/decade
Last 25 years: +0.197C/decade
Quadratic acceleration over entire record: +0.18C/decade/decade
Oops – that was the quadratic acceleration over the last 25 years.
Over the entire record it is +0.041C/decade/decade.
So even the acceleration has accelerated.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Prediction for this post of mine:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1663413
Clint will say “you don’t understand science”, without being able to explain why.
Swenson (Flynn) will cast out ad homs, attempt to change topics and/or tr011 by saying “please don’t tr011”.
Gordon will provide a long-winded “explanation” which makes irrelevant connections to other areas of physics, is riddled with conceptual errors, and ultimately says nothing at all.
And Graham D. Warner will end up PSTering to irritate.
Antonin, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Wow, this is a sustained peak. It’s abnormal for El Nino in timing relative to lag with ocean pattern and this longer duration. I wonder how much it involves the Tonga eruption and water vapor influx into atmosphere, but I have not crunched numbers or followed the issue in literature closely.
Our expert-in-residence, Clint, declared his “HTE” officially over about six months ago.
Thanks for referencing me, Ant.
You’re not expected to understand, but keep following me. Who knows, you might accept some reality?
Is the “HTE” over or is it not?
Ant, filling a bathtub with hot water results in a bathtub full of hot water. The “effect” is putting hot water in the tub. When the hot water is turned off, the “effect” is gone, but the tub remains hot for a time.
I suspect that this residual warming might be remnants of the HTE, but we will see….
Yeah – nice story.
Now tell me how long the atmosphere takes to dissipate its heat once the forcing is removed. Six months? Does the summer heat stay above that hemisphere until the following winter?
Glad you liked it Ant.
I like to keep my examples simple, so those with little knowledge can easily understand….
So can someone fill me in with a big picture overview… Is this Tonga? I’m your man for not knowing, and if not just El Nino then timing for Tonga makes me very curious.
I see you were incapable of answering my questions, Clint.
Your over-simple story glosses over time scales.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
I have some reservations about relying on the Oceanic Nio Index (ONI) values (though at least it continues to be available, unlike MEI.v2) and prefer to focus simply on the sea surface temperature (SST) values in the Nio-3.4 region (i.e. measured temperatures rather than anomalies) on which the ONI values are based. These SST data show a remarkable consistency in patterns, especially between significant El Nio events and, separately, (because they are different) between significant La Nia events.
The plot linked below compares variations in measured SST values (not anomalies) for 2023/24 in the Nio-3.4 region with HadSST4 and global UAH LT anomaly values. The plots for HadSST4 and global UAH LT anomaly values have been brought forwards by 2 months and 4 months respectively relative to the SST values for 2023/24 to reflect delays to the effect of the current El Nio. Both are (so far) tracking the SST peaks very closely. The first SST peak for the current El Nio occurred in June 2023 and the Global UAH LT anomaly peaked 4 months later in October. The second SST peak was in November, so we might well be seeing the second UAH peak right on cue in the March data, but of course it remains to be seen if it now starts to decline.
https://i.postimg.cc/5t5XQGVP/SST-in-Nino3-4-region-vs-GAT-with-delays.jpg
Sorry about the Nino and Nina words not showing correctly. I was not aware that this site couldn’t handle the correct designations.
“The first SST peak for the current El Nio occurred in June 2023 and the Global UAH LT anomaly peaked 4 months later in October”
I’m not aware of such an El Nino peak in June. You might be thinking of the Atlantic oceans and other parts of the global ocean peak that obviously was not caused by the El Nino.
I was referring to the first SST peak and I was discussing SST values in the Nino-3.4 region. A double SST peak is typical of strong and very strong El Nino events, as shown here:
https://i.postimg.cc/4dQ5tRDd/SST-in-Nino3-4-region-El-Nino-comparison-Feb-2024.jpg
As I have noted elsewhere:
The key difference between these [current] data and previous El Nino events is that the UAH global LT response has generally only tracked the second SST peak. So, from that perspective, the global temperature effect was normally not seen until several months later relative to the timing of the initial increase in SST for significant El Nino events.
You’re looking at absolute temperatures instead of anomalies.
Gee, I wonder why your maximum occurred in the NH summer, given the focus of this El Nino on the northern hemisphere.
You appear to have not studied the SST data in the Nino-3.4 region, which is situated right in the middle of the Pacific and is actually restricted to 5deg each side of the equator (and is the basis for determining ONI values). As I showed above, the highest SST values (the second peak) occurs in November, hardly the middle of the NH summer.
Take a look at the data over the longer term:
https://i.postimg.cc/T1kJ7qYv/SST-in-Nino3-4-region-Feb-2024.jpg
If you do study the data, you will see that the SST values show very clearly the distinction between significant El Nino and La Nina events, and the two very strong El Nino events show much higher SSTs than average from May through to May (May is the peak of the average SST values shown in blue); the current strong El Nino looks to be following exactly the same pattern but at 0.5C lower.
Feel free to evaluate the anomaly values for SST in the Nino-3.4 region, but keep in mind that these are not calculated from a true seasonal cycle, but from the simple average of the data. This average is clearly influenced by the La Nina cool periods reflecting the incursion of upwelling cold waters, something which is largely shut off during a significant El Nino.
Jim,
AQ has a point, if you look at nino 3.4 anomalies, they dont have a peak in june. They just show a monotonic rise from March to November.
https://psl.noaa.gov/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Data/nino34.long.anom.data
Nate,
It is definitely my preference to use anomalies where there is a clear seasonal cycle that needs to be removed in order to isolate longer term trends. I find this particularly useful when dealing with d13C_CO2 data, for example.
However, my problem here is that there is no seasonal cycle in the SST data for the Nino-3.4 data. It is very clear to me from the longer term SST plot I have showed, that it is not possible to determine a seasonal cycle. In any year, we could be looking at an El Nino, a La Nina, or neutral conditions, all with very different SST responses.
This is why, when calculating ONI values, they (NOAA) use average SST values to calculate anomalies rather than a seasonal cycle (which doesn’t exist). I question this approach for reasons that I have mentioned earlier. If the data show that the SST in the Nino-3.4 region is running at 29C at the equator, for a period of almost 12 months, as against a supposed normal of (say) 27C, then that’s the info I start with. If you can show why these data need to be turned into anomalies, I look forward to your explanation as to how and why.
There most certainly is seasonality in your data. Here are the monthly averages over the 74 years of the data set:
https://tinyurl.com/ENSO-34
Ross, “This is why, when calculating ONI values, they (NOAA) use average SST values to calculate anomalies rather than a seasonal cycle (which doesnt exist).”
The absolute T at your 2 peaks last year are nearly the same. But their ONI values are very different MJJ 0.8, NDJ 2.0.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
So clearly the ONI is subtracting a seasonally varying baseline that is much lower in NDJ.
As are the 3.5 monthly anomalies
nino 3.4 anomalies
Jim Ross
No problem at all with these inoffensive El Nio resp. La Nia!
But this here…
” I have some reservations about relying on the Oceanic Nio Index (ONI) values (though at least it continues to be available, unlike MEI.v2)… ”
… sounds a bit strange to me:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
Only Jan/Feb is missing.
Please be patient: we are currently in a period where it might become increasingly difficult to separate ENSO effects from those (possibly) induced by Hunga Tonga.
See notification here:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
It sounds fairly serious. If the source dataset is discontinued, as stated, it could be quite difficult to find a replacement that is a reasonable equivalent/approximation. Presumably, there will be re-calibration issues to resolve as well.
Hopefully, it can be fixed, but it does not sound like it will be updated for quite some time.
You’re right, I was merely looking at the data sheet today. My bad.
The same happened to the undetrended AMO due to the KAPLAN SST data missing, if I remember right:
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/amon.us.long.mean.data
Bindidon,
No problem. Thanks for the info re AMO.
It is very likely that global warming is accelerating owing to the continued emission of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels and the recent reduction in the emission of particulates from the ocean shipping sector.
See “Global Warming Acceleration: Hope vs Hopium”
29 March 2024
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha
Mark, are you STILL trying to promote your cult beliefs?
If you understood basic physics, you would be able to determine the energy in a 15μ photon.
But we saw how you messed that up.
Want another simple physics problem to mess up?
Clint
1.32 * 10^-20 joules
Remember, there are quite a lot of them.
Hansen is famous for his wild theories, and this one is no different. The rule limiting sulfur in bunker fuel took effect in January 2020, but he wants you to believe there was a delay of more than 3 years before the temperature finally increased. If you really believe that, or the possibility that small incremental increases in CO2 have finally taken effect, I have a bridge in Maryland I would like to sell. I can give you a really good price. Some assembly required.
He has noted the GW acceleration for several years. Nothing too controversial about that.
He detrended data from previous decades then found the correlation to ENSO and could remove its contribution. The result was a roughly horizontal line.
But in the last few years the resulting curve rises, deviating from the horizontal line. This seems to indicate an acceleration of GW.
https://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/ElNino-LaNina/
5th figure
Or, he is just charting random activity that does not have a defined cause. I have experience with statistical process control charts. There is nothing in any of climate data that can be directly attributed to anything except ENSO, which has an amazingly obvious effect. That also demonstrates how much noise there is in the data from undefined causes, since there is variation in that trend as well. Beyond that, the current increasing trend of the last many years has in theory some undefined component of increasing anthropogenic gases, along with ocean effects, and who knows what else. The current trend of the last few months is just nuts, and the best proof that climate trends are impossible to model or predict.
” There is nothing in any of climate data that can be directly attributed to anything except ENSO”
Huh?? ENSO is a short-term cyclic phenomena.
It cannot be the cause of the obvious warming trend.
Nate, are you pretending not to understand my carefully worded statement, or are you so caught up arguing with these other people that it just becomes a reflex. ENSO shows up in the satellite data as a clear result. Nothing else does. Everything else is vague at best.
Sure, because it is a cyclic and short term phenomena. So correlation is a very good bet to show causation.
Other, long term phenomena, not so.
“Everything else is vague at best.”
Hardly.
We rely on multiple lines of evidence. Including physics-based model predictions from decades ago, and their accuracy of predicting the temperature rise, and its large scale spatial pattern over the subsequent decades. Ones that include natural only vs ones that include added GHG forcing.
We have direct measurements of GHG rise, and direct measurement of the GHG forcing.
We now have TOA satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing flux, that confirm a predicted energy and can compare to in situ measurements of heat accumulating in the ocean, that confirm the first-law-of-Thermodynamics expectation that the TOA forcing results in heating of the system.
confirm a predicted energy imbalance, and its time variation.
And now Hansen says everything you know is wrong. He and his band of research fanatics claim they see evidence in the data that global warming is actually accelerating and climate change may have reach the point of no return. We have relied on his term of “Hopium” for too long. We can no longer rely on optimism and “wishful thinking”. Radical change in human behavior is required. Blah, blah, blah!
“And now Hansen says everything you know is wrong.”
Not quite. What we are talking about here is his analysis of the data, that seems to indicate acceleration of GW over the last few years.
His predictions of future warming are a different issue, in that he departs from IPCC projections.
There is no physics-based model that I’m aware of except Ed Berry’s. How does a physics-based model have dozens of different temperature “models?”
“There is no physics-based model that Im aware of except Ed Berry”
The usual ignorance, Stephen. The GHE is all about physics. Climate models use physics: fluid dynamics, thermodynamics.
Weather models use similar physics, and obviously are successful.
When you say ‘physics model’ you seem to mean: simple physics model with one easily digested equation.
Whereas atmospheric physics aint simple, nor is ocean physics, nor are they described by one equation.
Yet they are still physics.
All physics that is currently at the forefront is, by definition, NOT simple.
But thats no why they keep getting it wrong. Developing models is a process of modifying the models to match observations. Instead we are completely stuck on scientific guesses that have turned out wrong. . .and the game becomes pretending that they aren’t wrong and that there is an observed excuse for not yet producing. A football coach that does that would have been fired perhaps 10 times in the same time period.
Of course a losing football coach has big impacts on institutional revenues.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
Gill’s pet step.
ROFL
As usual Bill chimes in to substitute in political BS for science.
one should always call a spade a spade. what we are dealing with is a bunch of technocrats avidly feathering their personal nests at the expense of the freedom of the less fortunate. freedom pretty much across the board is in peril and this forum has far more than its share of their toadies.
And surprisingly, still more political rants substituted for science.
Surprisingly? Obviously you are being factitious. All you do is argue a political viewpoint. You have been asked repeatedly for the evidence that cold CO2 can heat something colder than the CO2 and you have fallen flat on your face everytime. So even your current reply is political.
Nate Makes Gill Do It
“hat cold CO2 can heat something colder than the CO2”
Confused.
But never claimed that CO2 is a heat source. You obviously weren’t listening or comprehending.
Tell Swanson.
If my device (satellite) kept giving the same output, I would suspect something is broke.
Andrew
But only if it kept giving the same HIGH output, right?
No. It’s just having worked with information technology for a long time, there are certain things that need to be looked into when the output is… odd.
Andrew
It’s actually sound advice.
What if the numbers it was giving you were consistent with the numbers all the other devices were getting?
Robert,
Still needs to be looked at. Lots of variables play.
Andrew
BA, There’s also the other possibility, that the theory behind the UAH products is flawed and thus the LT is under reporting the true rate of global warming. The RSS produce consistently shows greater warming than that from UAH.
As usual Swanson picks political sides in the battle of the experts.
Lower atmosphere is remaining warm while surface is not.
More stuff to learn.
I suspect UAH is working on it.
Good to see you finally accept that satellite data does not accurately reflect surface temperatures. Perhaps you might now share the news with Gordon.
Where did I ever say that, Ant?
Perhaps you should stop misrepresenting me. But that would require some maturity on your part, huh?
“Lower atmosphere is remaining warm while surface is not” is saying:
(i) that satellites measure lower atmosphere temperatures, not surface temperatures
(ii) that lower atmosphere temperatures and surface temperatures are different
No misrepresentation there.
Right Ant, I never said that.
Thanks for correcting yourself.
You didn’t say that?
So it is now not true that the “lower atmosphere is remaining warm while surface is not”?
And satellites measure 100% surface temperatures?
Is that what you’re claiming now?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1659860
Congratulations Clint – you’ve worked out how links work.
The next step is to make them point somewhere useful.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
I cannot believe this is real. ENSO events never have a sustained peak like this. There isn’t even enough excess heat in the oceans to feed this peak. Something is seriously wrong here.
I wonder, would you be just as outwardly “skeptical” if the anomalies were consistently LOWER than expectation?
Or would you merely be celebrating?
You can’t challenge anything I’ve said, so you choose to question my motives instead. It might make you feel good, but it doesn’t do anything to address the issue.
> You cant challenge anything Ive said
You literally said nothing.
You can’t JUSTIFY your claim that “there is something seriously wrong”.
“There isn’t even enough excess heat in the oceans to feed this peak. Something is seriously wrong here.”
Perhaps the accumulated heat sequestered by 2.5 years of nearly uninterrupted la Nina?
The LT is responding as if we just had a super el Nino. By ONI this el Nino event is ranked 5th for peak temperatures.
I wouldn’t dis.count another high anomaly for April, as global T response to el Ninos can persist until April.
The solar cycle 25 is starting to take shape and McIntosh forecast which is Bindiclown’s favorite is slipping into oblivion
https://i.postimg.cc/8pLspL6G/sfu-prediction.png
Bookmarked!
Bookmark this
https://joannenova.com.au/2022/04/experts-adrift-solar-cycle-25-already-twice-as-active-as-expected/#comment-2536879
Me, bookmarking your pseudo-knowledge? Very certainly not.
Jo Nova is way more intelligent and way better informed about solar stuff than you might ever become.
You, Dachshund, are a simple-minded pseudo-skeptical boy.
So you bookmark or don’t bookmark or what ? are you confused stoopid you can’t have it both ways
Gimme an M!
Gimme an O!
Gimme an N!
Gimme a C!
Gimme a K!
Gimme a T!
Gimme another O!
Gimme another N!
And then a P!
And now an A!
And also a W!
Lastly, an S!
What does it say?
The grand Monckton Pause was the be-all-end-all proof that global warming had stopped. At it’s peak it lasted 107 months starting in 2014/06. Since 2014/06 the warming trend is +0.29 C/decade. Isn’t it strange how Monckton has disappeared? Seriously…where did he go?
Obviously in order predict changes to decadal climate change rates one must first understand how climate change occurs.
I am not sure why you are calling it the Monckton Pause. It was pretty obvious in multiple climate records that by 2013 a major 17 year dip had occurred to the rate of global warming without any compensating dip in CO2 emissions.
I don’t recall anybody claiming warming had stopped completely.
> I dont recall
Contrarians are basically Markov processes.
BH, Monckton promoted the pause period and provided monthly updates of it on WUWT. In 2013 Monckton predicted the planet would cool by 0.5 C. It wasn’t just Monckton though, Andy May (a prominent WUWT author) claimed that “The planet is no longer warming” in 2019.
Looks like Walter R. Hogle forgot to answer your question, bdgwx:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-3892239
I wonder why. Could it be because he holds that derivatives are contextual?
bdgwx says:
”BH, Monckton promoted the pause period and provided monthly updates of it on WUWT. In 2013 Monckton predicted the planet would cool by 0.5 C. It wasnt just Monckton though, Andy May (a prominent WUWT author) claimed that The planet is no longer warming in 2019.”
We know ice cores show easily 2C temperature variations over hundreds of years. We know we had an unprecedented peak in solar activity that had a short term maximum in 1956 and a series of above average solar cycles that ended in 2008. We don’t know if there are differences caused by more UV hitting the surface and instantly warming the atmosphere due to convection and if less UV hits the surface but the atmosphere doesn’t cool as much as the surface because of the lack of convection. And we don’t really measure the surface temperature in a consistent way.
The big lie has always been about unprecedented warming, which actually was probably as pronounced or more so in the first half the 20th century before massive increases in carbon emissions. All this remains ignored and unpublished as much as human possible by the technocrats that think they know better than anybody else.
So depending upon what you want to call warming. Is it climate? Is climate at least a chunk of years amounting at least to 20? If it is 20 years we won’t know it Monckton was right in 2019 until 2039. My own opinion is that Monckton probably doesn’t know just like everybody else has proven they don’t know.
I am of the opinion that to know those answers we probably need to better understand how Milankovitch theory actually works. After all there seems to be unanimity that Milankovitch theory is responsible for the glacial/interglacial periods that produce up to about 15c changes in northern polar temperatures and perhaps up to 5C changes in southern polar temperatures, with a whole lot less known about changes elsewhere.
Willard, yeah, it’s ridiculous. WUWT is getting more and more antagonistic toward UAH and Spencer/Christy and most of that stems from the Gorman’s abuse of algebra that is so egregiously wrong that in some cases middle schoolers (if not even elementary age students) can spot it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-3893034
BH: The big lie has always been
…that the planet stopped warming.
BH: If it is 20 years we wont know it Monckton was right in 2019 until 2039.
We learned that Monckton was wrong in 2020 after his 0.5 C cooling prediction failed to materialize. We learned that those making predictions that warming had stopped based on Monckton’s pause updates were wrong in 2023 when new records starting appearing again. Mark this post…0.95 C will get eclipsed…eventually. I don’t know exactly when. It might be 15 years from now or next month. But it WILL happen. I know this for certain because I accept the 1LOT and 2LOT.
BH: I am of the opinion that to know those answers we probably need to better understand how Milankovitch theory actually works.
We have enough understanding of Milankovitch cycles to know that they aren’t the cause of the Monckton Pauses nor the secular warming we observe today.
bdgwx says:
”We have enough understanding of Milankovitch cycles to know that they arent the cause of the Monckton Pauses nor the secular warming we observe today.”
A source for that would be fantastic. Have one?
Milankovitch 1920: Thorie Mathmatique des Phnomnes Thermiques Produits par la Radiation Solaire
Berger has a really good summary in English including many citations related to the topic. It’s probably better to read that first before diving too deep into the Milankovitch cycles.
Berger 1988: Milankovitch Theory and climate DOI: 10.1029/RG026i004p00624
i don’t see anything in that source bdgwx that supports your claim below. please be more specific.
”We have enough understanding of Milankovitch cycles to know that they arent the cause of the Monckton Pauses nor the secular warming we observe today.”
Looks like bdgwx just bugged out. We will be left with wondering if he was lying about the science.
BH: i dont see anything in that source bdgwx that supports your claim below. please be more specific.
You saw nothing? Nothing at all? Like, for example, you didn’t see the time scales that orbital perturbations operate on? You didn’t see that orbital perturbations do not effect polyatomic gas species vibrational modes or their ability to impede the transmission of infrared radiation?
> i dont see anything
Step 1 – Pure Denial.
bdgwx says:
”You saw nothing? Nothing at all? Like, for example, you didnt see the time scales that orbital perturbations operate on? You didnt see that orbital perturbations do not effect polyatomic gas species vibrational modes or their ability to impede the transmission of infrared radiation?”
You seem to be talking about precessions. I am talking about changes in eccentricity and no I didn’t see an exclusion of more frequent perturbations that add up to only a couple of C degrees and show up in the ice core data perhaps several hundred times in the last 400,000 years.
Since you claim to know that its there perhaps a more specific reference would be in order.
I’ve discussed this at length with, Bill. He must have forgotten.
There is no evidence for mini-Milankovitch cycles that can be used to explain decadal T change on Earth.
These orbital cycles all occur over tens of thousands of years, as bdgwx tried to explain as well.
It should be simple to understand, but for some reason, it isn’t for Bill.
That is incoorect Nate. There are scores of scientific evidence of such cycles in the icecore data.
The record of orbital eccentricity is out there. Does it wiggle on decadal time scales?
Nah.
But go find it and report back.
BH: You seem to be talking about precessions. I am talking about changes in eccentricity
I’m talking about the Milankovitch cycles. That’s what you asked about.
Eccentricity: 100,000 years
Precession: 26,000 years
Obliquity: 41,000 years
BH: no I didnt see an exclusion of more frequent perturbations that add up to only a couple of C degrees and show up in the ice core data perhaps several hundred times in the last 400,000 years.
Deflection and Diversion. We’re talking about the blips in the UAH data. There are no orbital cycles that act on the times scales of ENSO which I keep repeatedly saying is the cause of the blips. The ENSO cycle timescale is 10 years or less. It’s not even remotely close to any of the Milankovitch cycles.
BH: Since you claim to know that its there perhaps a more specific reference would be in order.
It is there. I already gave you the citation.
BH: That is incoorect Nate. There are scores of scientific evidence of such cycles in the icecore data.
There is evidence of Milankovitch cycles causing ENSO in the ice core data?
Nate says:
The record of orbital eccentricity is out there. Does it wiggle on decadal time scales?
Nah.
But go find it and report back.
——————————-
Hmmm Nate seems to believe gravity only works part time in time with his viewpoint of Milankovitch theory. . .the viewpoint nobody can seem to fully document.
bdgwx says:
M
BH: You seem to be talking about precessions. I am talking about changes in eccentricity
Im talking about the Milankovitch cycles. Thats what you asked about.
Eccentricity: 100,000 years
Precession: 26,000 years
Obliquity: 41,000 years
————————–
Eccentricity variation is caused by the gravitational pull of celestial objects.
Indeed optimum points in a constantly changing variation in eccentricity may well occur every 100,000 years (revised to ~400,000 years by your translator)
bdgwx: ”Deflection and Diversion. Were talking about the blips in the UAH data. There are no orbital cycles that act on the times scales of ENSO which I keep repeatedly saying is the cause of the blips. The ENSO cycle timescale is 10 years or less. Its not even remotely close to any of the Milankovitch cycles.”
I am not talking about ENSO blips. They are too small to see in the icecore record. I am talking about 800-900 year cycles seen in the ice core records that also have a correlation with patterns of jupiter and saturn. It seems and I am in early investigation that the precession of the orbit (different than variation of eccentricity) may be related to the solar system dipping in and out of the spiral arm of the galaxy we are near.
Obviously since it takes 250 to 500million years for the solar system to circle the galaxy thats not a 100,000 year eccentricity cycle.
bdgwx: It is there. I already gave you the citation. No you gave me reference to an entire book that you are lying about your knowledge of its contents and cannot give the passages that prohibit much smaller cycles than the glacial cycles. . .because they are not there and you are lying.
It is beyond me how you guys hear something and believe it to a point that you go out into public and start promoting it without having clue one if it is true or not. You are like a bible thumper pretending to an expert scientist.
Gill guy wrote stuff, including:
Got any support for that assertion, like a reference maybe? BTW, HERE’s a link to a recent report about one of the Greenland ice cores. There are lots of references at the end, for you to choose from. Surely, even you could obtain the data and perform an “auditing” analysis to support your claim. Perhaps you could begin with a graph posted somewhere for all to see.
E. Swanson says:
”Got any support for that assertion, like a reference maybe? BTW, HEREs a link to a recent report about one of the Greenland ice cores.”
Did you even bother reading it? If you did exactly how does this apply to anything I said at all?
Gill guy wrote:
There are lots of sources for ice core data. The report I pointed to describes how one such ice core has been analyzed to produce a proxy record. The claim(s) that you have presented depend on the accuracy of these sorts of data, which, in turn, depends upon the analysis of the proxy data from the core, including the date model. In addition, the report includes many references for previous work, which would add to your continuing education on the subject.
Of course, you are continuing to divert the discussion of short term variation, especially the latest “blip” in Roy’s data.
So you admit it has nothing to do with what I was saying. You are just throwing stuff against the wall hoping something will stick.
Gill guy mumbled “…it has nothing to do with what I was saying”. But, he hasn’t given any indication that he knows what he’s mumbling about, offering no supporting analysis, reference(s) or data. He can’t understand the complexities of determining the temperature at some time in the past, with proxies determined from the depth along the length of the cores and a date vs depth model to match. So sad, so much wasted effort.
So what you are claiming Swanson is there is no regular temperature variation in the ice core record? Did you look?
Hibernation for a few years then he’ll pop back up to start counting the paws from 2023/24…
barry, please stop trolling.
Graham D Warner PSTers again.
Oh noes!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“E. Swanson ”
Re: “And, Theres evidence that AGW is already having an impact on the THC in the GIN seas, which might cancel some of that warming for locations which now enjoy relative mild winters, such as Northern Europe.”
Sorry – can’t see a reply button to your comment.
As I understand it the THC may be affected by increased melt in summer, which would slow it down.
But if the THC is being driven by increased temp and salinity differences then these differences would increase in the winter period and actually increase the rate of THC in winter when there is no melting. This would be consistent as to why temperature anomalies are greater in the Northern Hemisphere, in winter.
Combine that with the fact that CO2 is certainly greening the planet
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376821594_The_global_greening_continues_despite_increased_drought_stress_since_2000
and I see the only reason to reduce emissions being the finite nature of fossil fuels.
AA, You must be a newby. The “reply” button only appears for the first 3 levels. After that, one can reply to the last post in a thread for which there is a button.
As for the THC, it appears during the Winter months, when the ocean temperatures at high latitudes of the North Atlantic cool to near freezing. It has also been associated with the formation of sea-ice, which expels salt into the cold waters, further increasing the water’s density. The same is true around the Antarctic. There is no THC during the summer months nor in the North Pacific. The changes in the sea-ice cycle since the beginning of the satellite era has been stunning, as may be seen in THIS ANIMATION.
Adding CO2 to the air around plants is well known to increase growth for some species, but to achieve that result, more water is usually required. As I recall (?), there are two main pathways plants use to capture CO2, the C3 and C4. A while back, there were comments to the effect that most of our food crops were C3, which might experience reduced productivity, while the C4 plant types benefited. As usual, “the devil is in the details”.
I think it’s generally accepted that more CO2 results in less water usage by plants:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/168473/extra-carbon-dioxide-good-plants-water/#:~:text=As%20the%20levels%20of%20CO2,to%20use%20water%20more%20efficiently.
“As the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere rise, the stomata partially close. This is because the plants need to take in a less air to get the same amount of CO2, with the benefit that they are then able to use water more efficiently.”
Interesting comment about C3 carbon fixation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C3_carbon_fixation
“C3 plants cannot grow in very hot areas at today’s atmospheric CO2 level (significantly depleted during hundreds of millions of years from above 5000 ppm) ”
But this seems to indicate that higher CO2 levels will benefit these plants assuming the temperatures don’t spike that much (which is generally weather rather than climate related), which is why CO2 is fed into greenhouses.
So increased CO2 still looking rather beneficial.
The youtube link did not seem to indicate any slowing in the THC, though I note another study showing it slowing down by 4% over the last 40 years, though this may be due to natural variability.
“But Plant Food” never gets old:
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-co2-plant-food
AA, From the Wiki page for C4 plants:
Rice pudding with raisins…yummy!!!
@Willard
But Plant Food never gets old
That’s because it’s true.
There may well be challenges with a changing climate (and the climate has never not changed), but the data shows increased production year on year:
https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-production#interactive-charts-on-agricultural-production
Thing is farmers are supremely adaptable and can plant different crops based on weather and weather forecasts and how water retentive their soil is. What they are actively complaining about are restrictions and subsidy removal, risking food security, in the name of “saving the planet”.
@Willard
re: “C4 plants have a competitive advantage over plants possessing the more common C3 carbon fixation pathway under conditions of drought, high temperatures, and nitrogen or CO2 limitation.”
Thus again showing that increased CO2 levels may well be beneficial for crop growth.
Photosynthesis – temperature graph
Jiř Janouek – EBNEK, J., et al Fyziologie rostlin. 1. vyd. Praha: Sttn zemědělsk nakladatelstv, 1983. S. 169.
CC BY 3.0
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Photosynthesis_temperature.svg/800px-Photosynthesis_temperature.svg.png?20100127115401
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotosynteza
@Ireneusz Interesting, but not really relevant to the 3/4 of a degree rise that the tropics have experienced. The reality is that tropical crops such as Mango and Coffee – have shown year on year increases. There is no actual evidence that globally the gentle increases in temperature we have experienced are any kind of a serious threat to agriculture. Of course El Ninos and La Nina’s will contribute to local droughts, but reducing CO2 levels are not going to do anything about this.
Dear Alex,
It is neither true (glucose is the food) nor relevant to a warming planet that produces stuff optimized for the actual temps – see above. And if you really were serious about producing more food instead of doubling down on the silly talking point you might have found that other resource on your pet site:
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
It is not the CO2 that kills crops, it is the fast changes that it brings when we dump it in the atmosphere like there is no tomorrow. And while the world will undoubtedly survive the Murican fancy to embrace fascism (it too shall pass), carbon is forever.
@willard: Re:”It is not the CO2 that kills crops, it is the fast changes that it brings when we dump it in the atmosphere like there is no tomorrow.”
What a 1 degree rise in temps per century? Give me a break.
Re: “And while the world will undoubtedly survive the Murican fancy to embrace fascism (it too shall pass), carbon is forever.”
Totalitarian governments of whatever flavour have been all the rage since the 2020 lockdowns.
Re: “Research suggests that if everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops.”
Whilst it is true that plants need far less land than animals to produce calories it is also true that you need manure to feed plants, so we need animals for that. Or are you happy to be dependent on the haber bosch process using (horror of horrors) methane as the feedstock? In addition much of the land where I live is too hilly and too wet for competitive plant agriculture.
Also humans need either meat or fish to thrive.
> Give me a break.
Step 1 – Pure Denial.
Once we abstract away your shadowboxing, Alex, that’s what’s left.
Do you have anything else than head fakes?
@Willard
I don’t deny the planet is warming, I don’t deny that CO2 and methane may be contributing to the warming.
But I see no evidence that this is the terrible threat to mankind that alarmists make it out to be.
And given that photosynthesis requires CO2 and many plants evolved at much higher levels of CO2 than we have currently, then on balance this appears to be a good thing.
Yes, Alex. You don’t deny one thing, and then you deny almost all the others.
Who do you think you’re kidding but yourself here?
@Willard
My position is based on logic, reason and experience. Science has shown that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases so therefore an increase in them likely contribute to global temperatures, although we also need to be mindful that historically rising CO2 levels followed rising temperatures.
We also know that plants need CO2 for photosynthesis and that many plants evolved in much lower CO2 levels, so ceteris paribus elevated CO2 levels will be good for crop growth and this is what the evidence shows – with a greening planet.
On a personal level I grow a fair few veg and so know that the variations from one season to the next far outweigh the background trend of increasing temperatures, which predominantly affect the Northern Hemisphere and in winter too. If it’s warm enough this year I might grow some sweetcorn.
I suggest things might be better for you if you approach the subject on evidence rather than what appears to be a religious belief
Alex,
Your position is based on incredulity, contrarianism, and ideology.
I quoted a guy who studies the impact of climate change on agriculture that “the evidence is very clear that, on net, the changes going on in the atmosphere, including all the climate changes, are a risk to a lot of major production systems and to a lot of food insecure areas.”
You are dancing around that.
Take your time. Climateball is a long dance.
@Willard
You quoted a guy. A very tenuous appeal to authority indeed.
I will leave you with this from Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace:
Greenpeace was hijacked by the political left when they realized there was money and power in the environmental movement. [Left-leaning] political activists in North America and Europe changed Greenpeace from a science-based organization to a political fundraising organization, Moore said.
Moore left Greenpeace in 1986, 15 years after he co-founded the organization.
The environmental movement has become more of a political movement than an environmental movement, he said. They are primarily focused on creating narratives, stories, that are designed to instill fear and guilt into the public so the public will send them money.
He said they mainly operate behind closed doors with other political operatives at the U.N., World Economic Forum, and so on, all of which are primarily political in nature.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] is not a science organization, he said. It is a political organization composed of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program.
The IPCC hires scientists to provide them with information that supports the climate emergency narrative.
Their campaigns against fossil fuels, nuclear energy, CO2, plastic, etc., are misguided and designed to make people think the world will come to an end unless we cripple our civilization and destroy our economy. They are now a negative influence on the future of both the environment and human civilization.
Today, the left has adopted many policies that would be very destructive to civilization as they are not technically achievable. Only look at the looming energy crisis in Europe and the UK, which Putin is taking advantage of. But it is of their own making in refusing to develop their own natural gas resources, opposing nuclear energy, and adopting an impossible position on fossil fuels in general, Moore wrote.
Here’s some Food for thought:
Some 95 percent of total green plants on earth are C3 plants, while about 5 percent are C4 plants.
C3 crops include Wheat, Oats, Rice, Sunflower and Cot-ton.
C4 crops include Maize, Sugarcane and Amaranth.
> one of the founders of Greenpeace
Wrongo, Alex:
https://thinc.blog/2014/07/01/who-founded-greenpeace-not-patrick-moore/
> You quoted a guy.
Actually, I quoted David Lobell, Benjamin M. Page Professor, William Wrigley Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute, at the Woods Institute for the Environment and at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
Tell me more about yourself, Alex.
@Willard
So researching into David Lobell I find this paper part authored by him illuminating:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3510102/
Over the next few decades, CO2 trends will likely increase global yields by roughly 1.8% per decade. At the same time, warming trends are likely to reduce global yields by roughly 1.5% per decade without effective adaptation, with a plausible range from roughly 0% to 4%.
So even on that basis – global yields will increase. And I would argue that farmers will always effectively adapt to weather and climate changes – that is what their job is.
The thing is you watched Climate the movie you would see that David Lobell has to stress the climate being an issue to get funding. It’s only when you start to look at the research papers you find there is actually no problem.
Alex,
The projection that crop yield will increase in the near future was in 2012. Its scope was 2040-2060. And this yield increase was almost all lost to climate change effects.
You go from a silly movie to Patrick Moore to red baiting to arguing that AGW was good actually. And now you are backtracking to the stance that it should not be that bad.
We can probe that new stance of yours if you wish:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912414000145
Beware of illusions.
@willard
So you admit that yields are still increasing, so my assertion that rising Co2 levels are no serious threat to agriculture seems to correlate with both the theory and the evidence.
Anyway just about to take off, pleased that my flight will be beneficial to global agricultural output.
Alex,
Something tells me you still haven’t read the first quote I offered you. Perhaps you do not know what “on net” means?
Increasing yields are a red herring. Most of them aren’t caused by a warming climate. They barely compensate for the climate change loss.
Look at you. Regurgitating “but plant food,” “but my guru” Patrick Moore, “but politics” while promoting a propaganda piece. All the while expecting to have a Very Serious exchange.
Welcome to Climateball!
@willard “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
The reality is that there is no evidence of a climate crisis or anything approaching that.
There is good evidence of a net benefit from increasing levels of CO2, it’s just you have been exposed to so much climate propaganda you can’t accept it. If you want to see a science denier look at the mirror.
Dear Alex,
Incredulous platitudes from troglodytes who have so little Climateball experience that they do not realize Patrick Moore spent his career doing PR for various extractive industries are underwhelming.
If you want to appeal to plant food, at least be able to distinguas CH3 and CH4 plants.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner PSTers.
Honour is saved!
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Is it really the troposphere?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_EQ_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_SH_2024.png
Something strange is happening with satellite data? Are the orbits fixed?
https://i.ibb.co/xgLQYPs/masie-all-zoom-4km.png
https://i.ibb.co/4NSDdjt/r00-Northern-Hemisphere-ts-4km.png
In two days, another upper low will reach California with precipitation.
https://i.ibb.co/LJvdphs/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f060.png
WSO solar magnetic field observations for March 20, 2024.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
https://i.ibb.co/WncqNmT/latest.jpg
Carbon tax not working? Damn.
The surface temperature of the open ocean in the tropics never exceeds 31 C. Oceans cover 70% of the Earth’s surface.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/equatpac.fc.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_EQ_2024.png
Where will the stratospheric tongues reach?
https://i.ibb.co/MhKnx7V/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f060-1.png
As far as the tropospheric cunnilingus clouds?
(I think that’s how you spell those low dark clouds?)
It was likely written by a cunning linguist.
Thanks to Deep Purple…Knocking At Your Back Door…
“So we put her on the hit list
Of a common cunning linguist
A master of many tongues….”
“I can’t deny it
With that smile on her face
Oh it’s not the kill
It’s the thrill of the chase”
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Dr. John C. Eastman, the Founding Director of the Claremont Institutes Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute, until January 2021 served as the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University’s Dale E. Fowler School of Law, from 1996 to 1997 served as a law clerk with the Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas in the United States Supreme Court, took a position with Kirkland & Ellis in Los Angeles until 1999, taught at Chapman University where he served as dean from 2007 to 2010, founded the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in 1999 and has served as its Director since that time, served as the chairman of the Federalist Societys Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Group and as the Chairman of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage, on the Advisory Board for the St. Thomas More Society of Orange County and St. Monicas Academy, is now disbarred:
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/193726
Far too cryptic wee willy.
How does a straight list of facts about an individual qualify as “cryptic”?
I think you meant “far too long for my attention span”.
It is not apparent who he is talking about or what he is talking about. Of course, leave it you to understand him.
So you could not read “Dr. John C. Eastman”?
Gordo, From your repeated rants, one would have thought that you were following US politics. John Eastman spoke at Trump’s 6 Jan 2021 rally just before Trump himself exhorted his minions to go to the capital. The rest is history.
Given Eastman’s background, one would think he should have known better.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/lawyer-john-eastman-disbarment-trump-trial-defense-rcna146125
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner still insists on PSTering me in my own thread.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Why such low temperatures in Greenland and Svalbard?
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/04/02/2000Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-30.88,68.40,874/loc=-43.351,70.505
More evidence that NOAA is fudging the sat data before handing it over to UAH. There is absolutely no scientific reason why the temps are stuck around 0.9C above average.
In that case, why don’t they “fudge” their own surface records which are considerably lower?
They have fudged them to their own satisfaction, they need UAH to be hotter so alarmists will lose confidence.
HAHAHA – you are hilarious!
And what exactly would be their motive in making “alarmists” to lose confidence? And lose confidence in what exactly?
Please continue to spin this humorous little yarn …
That conclusion is a bit harsh and premature.
“There is absolutely no scientific reason why the temps are stuck around 0.9C above average.”
Other than that’s what the T happens to be doing, you mean?
Clearly Gordon never met data that he could find a way to deny..
nate…you’re talking like this spike, all of less than a degree C, is significant. Where were you since 1998 when 21 of the past 26 years produced a flat trend?
Do you think CO2 went dormant for 21 years and has suddenly made a comeback?
“talking like this spike, all of less than a degree C, is significant”
No longer sure anything is stuck then?
If this were a monetary report with some amount of accountability, an audit would be triggered.
Andrew
Not really.
Unless you imagine that a phone call is an audit.
Willard,
Do you imagine that “a phone call” fixes everything?
Andrew
Andrew,
Do you really think that every time you worry the world needs o genuflect in front of you?
Relax.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
swannie…”Look, Its The Movie! Its another example of carefully crafted political disinformation…”.
https://vimeo.com/924719370
***
Swannie…the rocket scientist who thinks heat can be transferred cold to hot by its own means.
“There is absolutely no scientific reason why the temps are stuck around 0.9C above average.”
You are a bit slow today. It has taken you about 16 hours to come up with such a brilliant, insightful and enlightening comment on the latest data from Roy. I can’t wait for your next comment.
I was busy on the old thread, straighten out alarmists.
Gordo wrote:
Actually, you were repeating your usual ignorance of physics. Proof by assertion isn’t proof of anything. Maybe this month you could try to stay on topic, instead of spreading more of that lunatic poop.
“I was busy on the old thread, straighten out alarmists.”
I see, you are now full time on your keyboard.
Get a life.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
It took a while to Graham D. Warner to return to PSTering.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 454.2 km/sec
density: 8.43 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 03 Apr 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 35
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 113 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.88×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.5% Low
Who is counting the protons, especially the 0.43 proton?
How things down in sunny Cal, gb?
Snow on the hills.
Care must be taken with lemon tree. And mango tree was silly.
“who counted the 0.43 proton”
per cm^3
Just like the birth rate last year was 1.67 babies per woman. Gordon, not the sharpest tool in the shed, would ask ‘who counted the 0.67 of a baby?’
Solar wind
speed: 446.9 km/sec
density: 1.83 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 45
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 112 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.83×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.5% Low
4 numbered spots.
None are leaving or arriving
Solar wind
speed: 421.4 km/sec
density: 6.53 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 05 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 47
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 114 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.74×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.5% Low
4 numbered spots. 1 is leaving. None are arriving.
Solar wind
speed: 421.7 km/sec
density: 3.96 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 81
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 121 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.74×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Low
6 numbered spots. None are close to leaving to farside within several days, and spot coming from farside which will be numbered.
There 3 spots grew on nearside, and could continue grow more.
Solar wind
speed: 411.4 km/sec
density: 3.69 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 07 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 71
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 123 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.64×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Low
5 numbered spot, 1 got numbered from farside, 1 went, and others faded.
Grr. None went {misremembered] just 2 of them faded/disappeared.
And don’t see one, but there might be one coming from farside
bdx….”The grand Monckton Pause was the be-all-end-all proof that global warming had stopped. At its peak it lasted 107 months starting in 2014/06. Since 2014/06 the warming trend is +0.29 C/decade”.
***
The end was announced by the IPCC in 2013 when they acknowledged there had been no warming during the previous 15 years, dating back to 1998. The flat trend continued into 2015 then the 2016 major El Nino happened. For some reason, it took its time getting back to the baseline.
Surely you don’t think this recent blip, caused by a volcano throwing millions of tons of water vapour into the stratosphere will last?
If you add the 6 years of Monckton onto the 15 years of flat trend, that’s 21 years of unexplained non-warming. How does that fit the AGW theory?
ps. we likely had one of the coolest winters on record up here.
Gordo, local temperatures for any season are what’s called WEATHER, not climate. Besides, have you got ANY evidence to support your contention, other than that your backside got cold when you walked the dog?
“The end was announced by the IPCC in 2013 when they acknowledged there had been no warming during the previous 15 years, dating back to 1998. ”
No they didn’t say that.
Lets see the Quote?
Nah, Gordon sez he don’t need no stinkin quotes.
Talk about denial. I have already gone through this with Barry and he had to eat his words. Care to take me on farther?
Gordon won’t cite what he is referring to because it contains information he doesn’t like.
"Despite the robust multi-decadal warming, there exists substantial interannual to decadal variability in the rate of warming, with several periods exhibiting weaker trends (including the warming hiatus since 1998) (Figure TS.1). The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). Trends for short periods are uncertain and very sensitive to the start and end years. For example, trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24] °C per decade, 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] °C per decade and 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18] °C per decade, respectively."
AR5 – Technical Report
GR: Surely you dont think this recent blip, caused by a volcano throwing millions of tons of water vapour into the stratosphere will last?
First…I don’t think the volcano is the primary cause of the blip. As I’ve said repeatedly I think the primary cause is the transition from La Nina to El Nino. The fact that the blip is higher than the other blips is the result of the persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.
Second…As I’ve said repeatedly a transient decline in temperature is expected due to the waning of El Nino. The keyword here is transient. The long term warming hasn’t stopped. 0.95 C isn’t the top. It may take awhile, but that 0.95 C mark will get surpassed…eventually.
bdgwx, would you agree that you are fanatical about the bogus EEI?
It’s been explained to you several times. It’s all bogus, especially to two decimal places! That ain’t science.
Yet you steadfastly cling to it.
That’s just being fanatical.
The elephant in the room is that all of this is in reference to a starting point in 1979, which is very well known to have been the very bottom of a decades long sharp cooling trend that returned temps all the way back to the values of the early 20th century.
Haha, funny how warmistas are back to pointing at sat temps after all that denying them as being of any value for all those years of the original post-1998 pause!
And that denial came after proclaiming that sat temps of the whole atmosphere of the whole globe was the correct way to measure GLOBAL warming of the …um…atmosphere.
Me, I’m eyeballing that well known and warmistas certified canary in the coal mine of global roasting-us-all-alive-ness…the polar amplifiedamacated Arctic Sea Ice.
But that’s just me.
“Haha, funny how warmistas are back to pointing at sat temps after all that denying them as being of any value for all those years of the original post-1998 pause!”
I point to UAH trends because that is the data set attached to this blog. It’s also the data set that ‘skeptics’ give greatest credence.
Never stopped referring to all the major data sets over the years.
What’s funny is ‘skeptics’ jumping ship from RSS (which Monckton continually used for the 1998 ‘pause’) to UAH as soon as UAH was revised to have lower trends than any other.
What’s also amusing is that ‘skeptics’ write off all the other data sets.
Well, I am not intending to get into a kerfuffle on the point, but what actually happened was RSS was adjusted down.
It was foreseen to be about to occur, and then it did, just as we were already discussing.
I do concede the point that this is a blog about the sat temps, and I was not saying it should not be discussed or implying that, so sorry if it sounded that way.
I was merely noting where the attention of various schools of thought has been drawn at various times, and how it has flat out shifted around.
I think the crux of the biscuit is, that the general idea of CO2 forced global warming requires that CO2 is THE control knob,the atmospheric thermostat, and that rising concentrations of CO2 will cause, HAS TO cause, an incremental and relentless warming.
Of course there are other major issues, many of which would be changing the subject at hand to bring up right here, but there is the hot spot “anomaly”. I known some of y’all are right fond of that word and concept, so there’s muh hat tip.
Specifically of course, that the models predict one, but observation continue to fail to see one.
This(the patterns we see in the UHA graph)seems more like the temp in a cooler if someone keeps closing and opening the lid.
Sometimes warms up, but then cools all the way back to and even below where it started, then later warms up suddenly again.
(I know, I know, you wished I used an oven door as the analogy instead of a cooler lid!)
Like how a little over a year ago (15-18 months ago), the value of the graph as all the way back to the center reference line!
Dang, did I say RSS was adjusted down?
You all know what I meant to say.
nic…”…what actually happened was RSS was adjusted down”.
***
Was that before or after they got into bed with NOAA?
bdg…”I think the primary cause is the transition from La Nina to El Nino”.
***
I can go along with that so long as you are not claiming it is caused by a trace gas.
Gordon,
I do not have all the details memorized and on the tip of my tongue after this much time, but I can and will go and find the exact time period and discussions I am above referring to.
Soon.
Thanks for the response.
Separately, I am not as sure about the details or circumstances re NOAA that you are referring to. Can you give some detail and maybe an approximate year or date?
My recollection is that the person who runs the RSS organization was coming under intensifying heat for publishing data that was not in accordance of “the narrative”.
It simply does not do to have scientific data that directly refutes and contradicts what the climate mafia is spewing out to us all.
“Like how a little over a year ago (15-18 months ago), the value of the graph as all the way back to the center reference line!”
Which has been adjusted upward several times. It is meant to represent the recent average T, not the average T BEFORE the current warming period.
The fact that T could oscillate down and touch the recent average is no surprise.
That T has not dropped well BELOW the recent average line should be a clue that warming is continuing.
“the very bottom of a decades long sharp cooling trend”
Sharp cooling trend?
I call adjective abuse on that one.
Here is the long term record.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/48/2/1850-2024
1979 is ~ the end of a flat period. Prior to that there was warming from a persistently lower T in the 19th century.
Altered data is not data anymore, Nate.
“Well, I am not intending to get into a kerfuffle on the point, but what actually happened was RSS was adjusted [up].”
Which completed ‘skeptics’ abandonment of RSS for the data set with the lowest trend.
This wasn’t based on a fair analysis of the reasons for the revisions. ‘Skeptics’ just gravitate to whatever supports their views.
Whereas ‘warmists’ do not favour the highest trend data set and write off the rest.
The word “cult” gets thrown around here a lot. I know which group looks more culty.
Nicholas McGinley: “Altered data is not data anymore”
Also Nicholas McGinley: “…1979, which is very well known to have been the very bottom of a decades long sharp cooling trend that returned temps all the way back to the values of the early 20th century.”
If Nicholas McGinley believes that altered data is no data, he should have absolutely nothing to say about changes and trends in any geological phenomena.
bdgwx says:
”FirstI dont think the volcano is the primary cause of the blip. As Ive said repeatedly I think the primary cause is the transition from La Nina to El Nino. The fact that the blip is higher than the other blips is the result of the persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.”
Hmmm, if this planetary energy imbalance is persistent why didn’t it effect the previous blips?
It didnt?
BH: Hmmm, if this planetary energy imbalance is persistent why didnt it effect the previous blips?
It did.
Well you have 1) an extraordinary alignment of planets that is likely reaching neutrality and won’t likely be seen again for sometime; 2) early effects of feedback from a solar grandmaximum that ostensibly ended in the 1980’s; 3) a waning negative ice oscillation; 4) a waning positive ocean oscillation; 5) recent high carbon emissions; 6) a sun near maximum; 7) recent reoccurrence of a ozone depletion; 8) the warmest months of a single El Nino cycle; and 9) the biggest volcano in modern history;
Much of the above may be interrelated but none of it has been quantified in a satisfactory manner. Bottom line is if as you say this and previous blips are a result of a ”persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.” I have ranked the most likely causes of that in a rough order above. Carbon doesn’t rise high because of the complete failure of models to reproduce the warming of the first half of the twentieth century. But I left it relatively high ranked for having spanned more than 5 decades.
Nate says:
Here is the long term record.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/48/2/1850-2024
1979 is ~ the end of a flat period. Prior to that there was warming from a persistently lower T in the 19th century.
———————————
I would disregard anything post 1970 coming from an entity that has been collecting billions of dollars a year from their doomsday predictions on all this.
One needs independent sources but all those have been hounded out of existence.
That’s Bill’s twisted version of Feynman’s adage
‘If experiment doesnt agree with your theory, it’s wrong’
For Bill it becomes:
‘if the data doesnt fit your crank theory, the data is wrong…and fraudulent!’
BH: Bottom line is if as you say this and previous blips are a result of a persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.
I didn’t say that. I said something completely different. Go back and reread my post. What did I say was the primary cause of the blips?
You said:
”The fact that the blip is higher than the other blips is the result of the persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.”
and to: ”Hmmm, if this planetary energy imbalance is persistent why didnt it effect the previous blips?” you said ”It did”
thus I concluded you effectively said: ”this and previous blips are a result of a persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.”
How is that a wrong interpretation of what you said?
Nate says:
”For Bill it becomes:
if the data doesnt fit your crank theory, the data is wrongand fraudulent! ”
Well lets look more closely.
1) I don’t have a theory. I am reading profusely on the topic and haven’t yet concluded anything.
2) the data is only partly observational. Algorithms have been consistently applied by desk jockeys second guessing station managers they never interviewed and reconstructing never measured high latitude ocean temperatures using a variety of biased means of ocean temperature measurements.
3) the surface data is not representative but spread around the globe as if it were representative.
4) the vast amount of actual measurement data is husbanded by non-independent entities profiting hugely off having the data showing certain results.
what kind of reliability do you think should be assigned to that?
You didn’t see me say it was fraudulent. As far as I am concerned I consider about as reliable as some guy in a trenchcoat in an alley flashing a Rolex watch at me and offering me a great deal on it. What do you want me to do? Call the cops on the guy for trying to sell a fraudulent Rolex watch?
You can do that if you want. I am just going to say ”no thanks” and keep walking.
“One needs independent sources but all those have been hounded out of existence.”
No they havent. That just popped out of your conspiratorial mind.
The data are collected by weather services all over the world. Many different sources. Did they all get together in the early 1970s and decide to warm all their data?
No.
As far as analyses of global T trends, there are a dozen or more independent analyses of the available weather data.
Then there are several Reanalysis groups calculating the global weather going way back decades.
BH: thus I concluded you effectively said: this and previous blips are a result of a persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.
How is that a wrong interpretation of what you said?
Because it is not anything like what I said. Here is what I said.
“I dont think the volcano is the primary cause of the blip. As Ive said repeatedly I think the primary cause is the transition from La Nina to El Nino. The fact that the blip is higher than the other blips is the result of the persistent positive planetary energy imbalance.”
I’ll spell it out.
Point #1…ENSO is the primary cause of blips.
Point #2…The positive planetary energy imbalance (PPEI) is why later blips are higher than earlier blips.
Note #1…ENSO occurs regardless of the PPEI therefore blips occur regardless of the PPEI.
Note #2…In the absence of the PPEI blips would still occur. There just wouldn’t be a tendency for later blips to be higher than earlier blips.
Nate says:
”The data are collected by weather services all over the world.”
All of whom have loyalties to governments and/or institutions collecting billions of dollars in revenues pretty much as if they were an all powerful corporation like Exxon/Mobil except that these institutions have sources of power that exxon mobil could only dream of.
”Many different sources. Did they all get together in the early 1970s and decide to warm all their data?”
many different sources? this is not a competitive environment. different would be russia, china, north korea, bulgaria etc.
yes some may be reliable but its not the case that your link was anything more diverse than the product of a crony agency of the government.
”Then there are several Reanalysis groups calculating the global weather going way back decades.” yes i mentioned the desk jockeys recalculating temperatures to fit to order already. i know how that works. its like paid and delivered expert testimony.
well bdgwx i guess its a positive note that yo daddy allows to recognize enso blips. i listed 8 other items. how many does your daddy allow you to think about?
Bill confirms that he thinks that since the 1970s, the weather data is no longer simply data on the weather reported by weather stations.
Since the 1970s all the big $$$ the people in the weather stations were getting in many countries, except communist ones, influenced all those people to warm the data.
Do I have your conspiracy theory about right now?
Hunter previously wrote:
He previously presented a list of 9 potential influences on the latest blip, commenting:
Hunter appears to have forgotten the old adage: Correlation is NOT Causation. And, he left out a potentially important influence, that of Tropospheric black carbon aerosols. Black carbon absorbs sunlight, unlike sulfate aerosols, which back scatters sunlight to space. Why is this potentially important? There were record number of large wild fires in Canada and elsewhere last summer, the smoke from which were reported as far away as Miami, FL. Cities in the North Eastern US were blanketed by seriously unhealthy clouds of smoke for days on end. Its likely that more fires also occurred in Siberia, perhaps being left to burn, potentially adding more smoke, as workers were shifted to the Ukraine War.
Why is this important?. Hunter claimed:
As noted in the video, Climate, The Movie, there were many more global wild fires between 1900 and WW II (40:02), compared with today. The technology to fight them was primitive, compared to that available today, so they tended to burn to exhaustion. The result would have been a continual source for black carbon aerosol into the Troposphere. And, during WW II, entire cities went up in flames, releasing more smoke. Of course, Hunter has no theory to provide any support for any of his claims, let alone consider the black carbon issue.
swanson correlation isn’t causation but correlation is necessary for causation.
thats why one should start with a comprehensive list of correlating events since it appears you are ignorant of that fact and thus you have erred. not sure if your purpose was to handwave off the list as the list is likely only the first two as the first two are the primary drivers of milankovitch theory that is horribly poorly documented. the other items in the list are either likely a form of feedback or are too shortlived to account for historic climate change.
Nate says:
”Bill confirms that he thinks that since the 1970s, the weather data is no longer simply data on the weather reported by weather stations.
Since the 1970s all the big $$$ the people in the weather stations were getting in many countries, except communist ones, influenced all those people to warm the data.
Do I have your conspiracy theory about right now?”
nate isn’t very observant and apparently has failed to comprehend the wide differences between weather gathering sources the heat of which is rather closely related to the levels of funding received for mitigation/prediction work and the competition of political ideologies among nations. no conspiracy theory required unless you want to consider paying for results to be conspiratorial. do you think exxon mobil scientists make big bucks?
the problem with you communists is you aren’t any different than anybody else but you completely flop and fail to see the problem of concentration of power in your own system.
“the problem with you communists ”
Bill you are hilariously confused and off your rocker.
Earlier you said the communist countries were the only ones not participating in the scam!
“do you think exxon mobil scientists make big bucks?”
As a matter of fact, those scientists also discovered that CO2 emissions should lead to GW, and this was reported internally, but not externally. Because the management of the corporation foresaw how that could negatively impact their bottom line.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063
It’s always hilarious when Hunter drifts into all lower case. Is he playing with an AI program, or is his use of a language other than English results in poor translation? When he wrote:
Hunter guy tosses out another red herring, suggesting that the Milankovitch math governs “the Blip”, ie, ENSO. This isn’t even a hypothesis, let alone a theory, and Hunter offers zero theoretical support and no data to back his assertion. To be sure, there have been attempts to connect planetary motions to the Sun Spot Cycle which Hunter might want to investigate. But, I think that one needs to dive much deeper into the science to make a connect between Sun Spots and ENSO.
Nate says:
”Bill you are hilariously confused and off your rocker.
Earlier you said the communist countries were the only ones not participating in the scam!”
Wrong you just can’t read with comprehension.
I only excluded the communist countries from bribing their employees with promotions and dollars. They don’t have to do that to get the data they want to send to the West.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter guy tosses out another red herring, suggesting that the Milankovitch math governs the Blip, ie, ENSO.”
Obviously you can’t read either.
Yes, Gill guy, it’s hard to comprehend the meaning of your posts when you write stuff like:
It’s not at all clear what ranking you intended. Usually, the first in a list could be taken as the most likely, IMHO. However, one can not deduce from your multiple posts whether the top entry on the list or the bottom is the most likely. Of course, your list offers no understanding for the effects of each entry, thus it’s useless to try yo discuss it.
E. Swanson says:
”not sure if your purpose was to handwave off the list as the list is likely only the first two as the first two are the primary drivers of milankovitch theory that is horribly poorly documented.
Its not at all clear what ranking you intended. Usually, the first in a list could be taken as the most likely.
————————
The likely contributions to global warming are ranked in an order of their persistence of the period in question (industrial age). Many are of too short duration. Others have been studied like CO2 and haven’t measured up over the entire period.
At some point one needs to recognize other long period phenomena at work. What better one than Milankovitch which is attributed for up to 15C Arctic temperature natural variations? . . .especially noting that there are many drivers of Milankovitch theory that causes regular variations already estimated by Milankovitch and others, very poorly documented using the most modern scientific capabilities.
Bottom line Swanson, the first two are the only ones not eliminated as being a single major pulse. ocean and ice oscillations are ranked above emissions because their oscillation patterns match the historic record, but CO2 theory does not.
You can whine and moan all you wish but until these other items are properly addressed this whole thing looks like the scam that Dr. William Happer says it is. And there is no greater patriot in the debate whose credentials rise higher than Happer.
Gill guy pontificates a claim, writing:
Gills assertions are without reference, analysis or data, yet he thinks they are important. He continues:
To be sure, there are “oscillations” within the climate system, particularly the ENSO, which may appear in the available data as short term variation added to the long term trend. That does not disqualify the effects of humanity’s emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere, which does not happen to exhibit “oscillations”, but which results in a steady upward trend contained within the data. And, Gill forgets that there are short term variations due to volcanic effects and the frequency of eruptions in the historical record adds variation as well.
Well you guys have been going way out on a limb trying to eliminate natural climate change like the MWP and LIA.
Mike Mann and Al Gore took a shot at it but failed. The fact they felt they had to do that is evidence of the scam. They couldn’t do it with science so they resorted to sensationalist journalism.
There isn’t one guy in this forum who can explain how CO2 makes warmer things hotter. Its amazing how gullible you are Swanson. Somebody just tells you something and not only do you believe it, you become an activist promoting it. . .and you don’t even know how it works.
Gill guy wrote:
He is so confused, he’s talking about himself. All he does is spout some silly “theory” he picked up from the ‘Net, without any supporting science. Then he blames us for his ignorance.
Swanson I am only talking about the people who are lying when they claim they know how the GHE works. That would not include me as I don’t know how it works and neither do you. But you lie that you know and you won’t provide the details. That’s why I know you are lying. You lack credibility, you are not to be trusted.
Hunter guy accuses me of lying, in order to shift the discussion away from his red herring about planetary influences on climate.
Of course, I don’t know EXACTLY how the GHE “works”, but I have spent lots of effort to understand it, including my GPE validation of Eli’s presentation about “back radiation” between two plates. I’ve also acquired several text books on the subject, which ultimately rely on models that I am unable to deal with because of the math. I’ve read much of the IPCC’s reports, acquiring the first one when it was published. I’ll admit that I’ve become lazy of late, for example, I’ve not completed reading the copy of Pierrehumbert’s book “Principles of planetary climate” which I acquired when it was published.
That said, it’s Hunter who refuses to supply any details to support his comments, whereas I’ve tried to do so repeatedly. As a result, all he has is ad homeneum
E. Swanson says:
”Of course, I dont know EXACTLY how the GHE works, but I have spent lots of effort to understand it, including my GPE validation of Elis presentation about back radiation between two plates.”
Heat will always take the easiest path Swanson. Stefan Boltzmann established a law of how hot an object can warm something until its in equilibrium. It also establishes the rate of cooling.
Nothing in Stefan Boltzmann supports your twisted view of the GHE.
Even Nate has admitted that its not an appropriate model for earth’s GHE.
E. Swanson says:
”That said, its Hunter who refuses to supply any details to support his comments, whereas Ive tried to do so repeatedly. As a result, all he has is ad homeneum”
Support what comment? I don’t have a complete answer for the gHE either and don’t pretend I do like you.
As Dr. Syun Akasofu says to understand anthropogenic climate change you must first understand natural climate change.
So now I complain about the lack of science in finely understanding Milankovitch study and I have a horde of people complaining about doing science on the topic claiming its well documented which quite simply is a lie.
Hunter guy is still trying to walk away from his claims of long period climate variations due to planetary influence. Now, he switches to claiming that:
Hunter does not say why he offers this claim. He ignores the fact that SB is commonly used in engineering to calculate radiation heat transfer between surfaces. He does not explain how my GPE results violate the SB calculations. Of course, the GHE involves gasses, not the surfaces of solid objects, but the effects are similar when integrated over the spectrum of the IR radiation involved. He apparently is unaware that the UAH products from Spencer and Christy rely on SB calculations.
I had not previously heard of Dr. Akasofu, who claimed back in 2009 that “Natural Causes” were the source of warming recorded since about 1850. Hunter suggests that the data is not “well documented”, when we have high resolution data from ice cores to examine. For example, the well known “8200 BP Event” shows one such variation which is most certainly NOT caused by planetary influences. The report I referenced above presents high resolution ice core data which is initially sampled with time steps of less than a year.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter guy is still trying to walk away from his claims of long period climate variations due to planetary influence. Now, he switches to claiming that:
Nothing in Stefan Boltzmann supports your twisted view of the GHE.”
———————
You are so full of it Swanson. You brought up your validation of the GPE which is not an appropriate model for the earth’s GHE.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”I had not previously heard of Dr. Akasofu, who claimed back in 2009 that Natural Causes were the source of warming recorded since about 1850. Hunter suggests that the data is not well documented, when we have high resolution data from ice cores to examine. For example, the well known 8200 BP Event shows one such variation which is most certainly NOT caused by planetary influences. The report I referenced above presents high resolution ice core data which is initially sampled with time steps of less than a year.”
Ice core data displays a lot of variation including variation of up to about 2C on a multi-centennial scale. One would naturally assume we are in such a variation now as did Dr. Syun Akasofu and Dr. Don J Easterbrook yet no work has been forthcoming on the topic due to the rampant corruption.
Hunter guy continues his comments regarding natural climate variations and ice core data, yet, he still can’t provide any references with analysis of the data. Throwing out a couple of names, including Don Easterbrook, then claiming it’s impossible to publish because of bias ignores the availability of self publishing opportunities. He ignores the fact that there’s lots of data available from the Internet which even he could download and “audit”.
Hunter is just a loudmouth, braying (as Willard would say) endless empty claims to spam the blog.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter guy continues his comments regarding natural climate variations and ice core data, yet, he still cant provide any references with analysis of the data.
Throwing out a couple of names, including Don Easterbrook, then claiming its impossible to publish because of bias ignores the availability of self publishing opportunities. He ignores the fact that theres lots of data available from the Internet which even he could download and audit.
Hunter is just a loudmouth, braying (as Willard would say) endless empty claims to spam the blog
—————————-
Is the only way you can end the conversation is by being a loudmouth Swanson. Does it always boil down for you that anybody who questions your religion is a loudmouth?
Here is a graph of a small snippet of ice core data viewed by Dr. Don Easterbrook. As you can see the warming we have experienced is not unprecedented and could be from natural causes (though I do believe that cold CO2 could warm some of thos -60C winter days some of the warming is anthropogenic or erroneous, taking a guess perhaps up to 1/3rd of the warming). How much of the warming do you believe could be natural? without shouting of course.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Easterbrook%E2%80%99s-version-of-the-GISP2-based-temperature-reconstruction-graph.png
Hunter guy wrote:
Hunter guy has already forgotten that he labeled me as a liar. So, how should I reply to his repeated ad hominem attacks?
Perhaps I should also point out that Hunter’s latest post included a link to an Easterbrook graph which returned “Error 1011 – Access denied”. Being a rather curious sort, I wandered around the site and found this link A misleading graph purporting to show that past changes in Greenlands temperatures dwarf modern climate change has been circling the internet since at least 2010.. The “misleading graph” is Easterbrook’s.
The article points out that:
Perhaps Hunter guy should read his references before he posts them.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter guy has already forgotten that he labeled me as a liar. So, how should I reply to his repeated ad hominem attacks?”
Thats not an ad hominem attack. You lie when you claim that carbon emissions are scientifically established as the primary cause of the modern warming. You don’t know that but you say so anyway. And you can’t even explain how it works.
E. Swanson says:
”The misleading graph is Easterbrooks.
The article points out that:
First, the x-axis is mislabelled. In fact, it should say Years before 1950, rather than Years before present (2000 AD).
The GISP2 ice core only extends up to 1855 95 years before 1950. This means that none of the modern observational temperature period overlaps with the proxy reconstruction.”
——————–
Of course none of that is relevant criticism of Dr. Easterbrook’s work. All it is is nitpicking.
His work shows as much as 3.5c natural variation occurring in the climate record within a period of about 350 years. The work you quote as correcting, Zeke Hausfather it shows 2.5c variation in about 350 years. But it in fact shows even more variation over the past 1500 years at more than 4C.
I am sure in Zeke’s mind the objectionable thing that Dr. Easterbrook did was zoom in on the scale so it became more obvious to the casual user without squinting at the resolution of Hausfather’s graph.
Yet you clamped down on the idea that Easterbrook’s work was deceptive like an Atlantic Cod clamping down on a clam.
So that makes both you and Hausfather liars. Hausfather for being deceptive and you believing him without any understanding of what you are looking at but pretending you did.
Hunter guy sure thinks he knows my motivation well enough to brand me a liar yet again. But, he is also playing games with the data, for example suggesting that:
Of course, this is a comment without context or reference. Are you pointing to that same graph which you previously posted or one of the other graphs on Zeke’s post? And, are you not aware that the discussion was relative to temperatures wrt Greenland, which experiences wider swings in temperature than that experienced globally? It’s the result of “Arctic Amplification”, as Zeke mentioned.
I think you are still trying to find support for your previous red herring claiming that the motions of planets influence climate. Perhaps your frustration is the cause of your repeated personal attacks.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter guy sure thinks he knows my motivation well enough to brand me a liar yet again.”
—————–
You could just be quite gullible. Since you admitted ”Of course, I dont know EXACTLY how the GHE works, but I have spent lots of effort to understand it, including my GPE validation of Elis presentation about back radiation between two plates.” The GPE is not an appropriate model for earth’s GHE. You have nothing at all. Since you recognize that well that kind of rules out gullible as I assume you know something about the scientific method.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”But, he is also playing games with the data, for example suggesting that:
(Easterbrooks work)..shows as much as 3.5c natural variation occurring in the climate record within a period of about 350 years.”
————-
What manipulation? Can’t you read a graph?
xxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”Of course, this is a comment without context or reference. Are you pointing to that same graph which you previously posted or one of the other graphs on Zekes post?”
—————–
I am comparing the two graphs, Easterbrook’s and the one Zeke offers that essentially shows the exact same thing. . .if you know how to read a graph you will see that.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”And, are you not aware that the discussion was relative to temperatures wrt Greenland, which experiences wider swings in temperature than that experienced globally? Its the result of Arctic Amplification, as Zeke mentioned.”
Zeke fires from the hip here. No ”arctic amplification” has been shown for the greenland ice cap. We know from looking at detailed anomaly charts Arctic amplification comes from the uncovering of the Arctic Ocean from melting sea ice.
UAH shows a total of arctic amplification
Arctic land warmed more than northern hemisphere land by 13%.
Arctic ocean warmed more than northern hemisphere ocean by 44%
Arctic land warmed more than global land by 21%.
Arctic ocean warmed more than global ocean by 56%
so you see Zeke was shooting from the hip here also. Yet you are gullible enough to believe such an ignorant analysis. Zeke I am sure is lying as he should know better. You have a excuse.
E. Swanson says:
”I think you are still trying to find support for your previous red herring claiming that the motions of planets influence climate. Perhaps your frustration is the cause of your repeated personal attacks.”
—————–
It is pretty clear to me that they are responsible for the stepwise fashion of warming. I accidentally discovered this. But I am not arguing the point at this point in time. I am finishing up some work assignments and have promised somebody I would work on it through the rest of spring as soon as I wrap up my current project. Look for something his summer. Again there are no personal attacks. Its clear, and you just admitted it above you don’t know how it works. Yet you fervently believe in it. Stating a fact isn’t a personal attack its just the truth.
Hunter guy wrote:
My GPE demonstration countered the Slayer’s claim that “back radiation” from the GHE could not cause a heated surface to warm compared with the case of no “back radiation”. It’s obvious from the physics that GHG’s both absorb IR radiation from lower levels and produce downward radiation toward the surface, which fits the narrative that back radiation would cause the surface to be warmer than without. The effects of water vapor under clear skys also provide an obvious demonstration of this process.
He continues, writing:
Hunter doesn’t get it. He didn’t bother to point out which section of either graph he was referring to. Both do show a rapid warming at the beginning, a consequence of the transition from the Younger Dryas to the Holocene warmth, and the 8,200 BP event as well. Or, is he thinking about the so-called “recovery” from the LIA? Hunter calls that “nitpicking”, but that’s how science works. Simply throwing a graph up on the screen without details doesn’t cut it.
BTW, one of Easterbrook’s works included a reference to Craig Loehle’s 2007 report in E&E that displayed a warm MWP, which also botched the data ages, just like Easterbrook’s graph. I found the error and pointed it out to RealClimate, after which a “correction” was produced. That also had problems, as I demonstrated with a Letter to the Editors of E&E. My letter has since been “lost” on E&E. In spite of it’s errors, the Loehle 2007 paper was the leading paper in the the denialist list of papers posted on Senator Inhoffe’s web site and included in his 2011 book.
One can only hope that Hunter finishes his project regarding planetary influences and the results appear in print, not a blog post for “somebody” like Tony Watts or on another denialist site. You know how it is, references and data source must also be included.
E. Swanson says:
”My GPE demonstration countered the Slayers claim that back radiation from the GHE could not cause a heated surface to warm compared with the case of no back radiation.”
————–
I said that heat always takes the easiest path.
This GPE only deals with uninsulated surfaces that haven’t reached equilibrium.
The surface of the earth is insulated so the GPE doesn’t apply.
The GPE also doesn’t apply to the atmosphere as the GPE involves fixed plates and not convecting gases. The very fact you go down these bunny trails is you have no trail to follow to establish that CO2 is responsible for the GHE.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
Its obvious from the physics that GHGs both absorb IR radiation from lower levels and produce downward radiation toward the surface, which fits the narrative that back radiation would cause the surface to be warmer than without. The effects of water vapor under clear skys also provide an obvious demonstration of this process.
————–
No its not obvious. You are extrapolating without a shred of evidence other than correlation. You just said above: ”Hunter appears to have forgotten the old adage: Correlation is NOT Causation.” Until you start following your own advice that is correct you have zero chance of ever figuring this stuff out.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter doesnt get it. He didnt bother to point out which section of either graph he was referring to.”
Swanson apparently can’t read a graph and claims he can’t see the temperature varying routinely in both graphs. Ridiculous and laughable!
E. Swanson says:
”BTW, one of Easterbrooks works included a reference to Craig Loehles 2007 report in E&E that displayed a warm MWP, which also botched the data ages, just like Easterbrooks graph. I found the error and pointed it out to RealClimate, after which a correction was produced.”
None of that changes anything. Zeke’s Berkeley Earth ice core data shows at 30BC the multi-site temp anomaly +1.49 then 60 years later it was -1.06. Thats a change of 2.55C in 60 years. And that isn’t the only change.
Clearly you are in lying territory here attempting to blot out the facts you don’t like. Arctic amplification doesn’t apply to the Greenland ice sheet as I showed above where the 45 year land change for the arctic is on track for 1.44C in the past 60 years. And one must consider that much of that land in he current record is very near the shorelines influenced by ocean warming whereas the greenland ice sheet locations are not. In addition the ice core record since then shows multiple movements of more than 1C since then. You don’t have a leg to stand on supporting your BS.
Hunter continues to aimlessly wander around trying to ignore the facts of Arctic amplification.
He ignores the facts of the UAH (LT?) data as well, which does not measure surface temperature and which is binned into 2.5×2.5 degree grid boxes that make it difficult to separate land and ocean areas. Also, there is no LT data poleward of 82.5 degrees, so no data for the North Pole.
He also comments:
Yes, that data for Greenland, and the proxy data being measured (del 18O) comes from other areas. There’s not going to be much WV available to make snow from Greenland’s ice, so it must be avected in from other areas, depending on the prevailing wind patterns. Not to forget that Arctic Amplification includes seasonal changes in land snow cover as well as sea-ice. You can’t begin to analyze things without models.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the past few months have produced unusually warm conditions compared to historical records. Where’s HUNTER’s explanation?
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter continues to aimlessly wander around trying to ignore the facts of Arctic amplification.”
Swanson there is no evidence of an climate warming amplification up on the Greenland ice sheet plateau.
If you disagree then post a link to that evidence otherwise just stuff it where the sun don’t shine.
Hunter guy wrote:
Swanson there is no evidence of an climate warming amplification up on the Greenland ice sheet plateau.
What ever that means. But, Hunter needs to do his homework as there’s been quite a bit of research on the Greenland Ice cores and what they mean. Here’s an abstract for just one example I found just now, Climatic signals in multiple highly resolved stable isotope records from Greenland.
Have fun with your project…
Swanson has resorted to blowing smoke and can’t find a source to support his claim that the greenland ice sheet historically experienced amplified warming. . .seems what Swanson is claiming here is that arctic amplified warming is perfectly natural and not due to carbon emissions.
Hausfather’s graph has Greenland ice sheet warming by 2.55C in 60 years from 30bc to 30ad. thats about 5 times the rate of global warming over the past 174 years. So effectively Swanson is calling all the claimed arctic amplified warming as perfectly natural and not due to human emissions. Gee that’s even a more aggressive stance than my own which agrees with the top climate scientists in Swanson’s movie that global warming from a doubling of CO2 will be less than 1/3rd that claimed by unvalidated climate models and the IPCC.
Hunter wrote:
Yes, I think that the temperature records for the Arctic do show greater variation when compared with that of the tropics and the SH and it also applies to cooling events. Arctic Amplification doesn’t just apply to the effects of CO2 and other GHG’s. The Greenland δ18O ice core data does not represent overall global temperature averages.
Hey Big Guy, I found a couple of very interesting reports regarding the ice cores, but you won’t get the references from me, since you have declared that I am a liar.
Have fun with your project
E. Swanson says:
April 20, 2024 at 11:43 AM
Hunter wrote:
BH:”So effectively Swanson is calling all the claimed arctic amplified warming as perfectly natural and not due to human emissions.”
Yes, I think that the temperature records for the Arctic do show greater variation when compared with that of the tropics and the SH and it also applies to cooling events. Arctic Amplification doesnt just apply to the effects of CO2 and other GHGs. The Greenland δ18O ice core data does not represent overall global temperature averages.
—————-
Ah hah, we have some agreement. Greenland plateau warming is very much in line with the largest region in the NH, the temperate zone.
Obviously the tropics aren’t going to warm much as the sun doesn’t do a good job getting through the cloud cover and the GHE from that water in the clouds doesn’t warm stuff already warmer.
Further the SH hemisphere hasn’t lost a lot of sea ice so no amplification occurring there.
The greenland plateau experiences less than climate length spurts of warming just like every region does from jet stream variations as oceans do their thing in the northern hemisphere. So the Greenland plateau did experience a short period of accelerated warming back when everybody was getting excited about Greenland melting. But that has passed like all weather phenomena has passed and you are left with less climate length warming in Greenland that what was seen during the Roman optimum according to ice core data, both from Easterbrook’s and Hausfather’s accounts. Hausfather also shows a MWP spike drop off of +.2.29C from 1450 to 1710ad. Easterbrook’s, while not interactive shows a drop in the same period of about 1.98C.
So its really odd that Hausfather is criticizing Easterbrook’s work when his own multi-core shows even more variation. I would conclude the reason for that is a couple of the Hausfather’s core sites are quite close to the Greenland shores. I guess he is depending upon his readers just glancing at the graph and seeing smaller spikes being display via decreasing the resolution of the scale. Did you fall for that?
Hunter guy wrote:
Funny thing you should say that, since the ice cores don’t measure the temperature of the Greenland Plateau.
Anyway, looking at the RSS data reveals these trends:
Global = 0.219 K/decade
Arctic = 0.466 K/decade
North Mid-Latitudes = 0.300 K/decade
Tropics = 0.175 K/decade
South Mid-Latitudes = 0.181 K/decade
South Polar (no Antarctic) = 0.063 K/decade
Arctic Amplification is plainly evident from these data.
Hunter wanders on, cherry picking time points and ignoring known influences:
Read My Lips: Kuwae? volcano ~1452, 1458 CE and Maunder Minimum ~1645-1715 CE, etc.
Have fun with your project
E. Swanson says:
Funny thing you should say that, since the ice cores dont measure the temperature of the Greenland Plateau.
———————
Really? Now you are getting ridiculous and you have no support for any of your points other than a blog post.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter wanders on, cherry picking time points and ignoring known influences:
Hausfather also shows a MWP spike drop off of +.2.29C from 1450 to 1710ad.
Read My Lips: Kuwae? volcano ~1452, 1458 CE and Maunder Minimum ~1645-1715 CE, etc.
—————–
Volcano effects are weather effects. The reason that 95 years before present is selected is because it takes decades for the ice to pack down and stop isotopic changes between layers. Easterbrooks ice cores were taken in the late 1980’s and early 90’s.
Thus every sample is a mean condition covering a climate length period.
Volcanic explosions causes some temporary cooling lasting a year or two. These ice cores presented by Hausfather and Easterbrook show that 2c degrees of climate change is not an unusual unnatural occurrence. You have to be totally indoctrinated to not see that. And of course the LIA is an example of that having been made up of 3 maunder minimum solar events over the 260 year period. The Maunder minimum was only the last 60 years.
Your argument is totally bankrupt as both Easterbrook’s data and Hausfather’s data show this and in fact Hausfather’s data is more variable than Easterbrook’s though some how Hausfather managed to convince you to not even examine his data.
Talking about gullibility! Sheesh!
Hunter guy wrote:
The experts disagree.
Hunter continues:
What we see in the 2 graphs are filtered curves and the variation depends on the smoothing filter selected. The longer the period of the filter, such as a moving average, the less impact of volcanic events is evident. But, the oceans also “filter” the effects of volcanic events given their large mass compared with the atmosphere. Also, sulfate deposits from volcanic events in the SH will appear different in ice cores from Greenland compared with the Antarctic and conversely.
Look at the graph of the NEEM data which I posted. The data at this depth exhibits sub-yearly resolution and is highly variable. When filtered with a 61 point MA, the variation is heavily smoothed. Of course, as any data analyst knows, moving averages induce aliasing into the resulting curve, so one’s eyeball perception may be misled into thinking there’s an cycle when there may not be.
Have fun with your project.
E. Swanson says:
”The experts disagree.”
Indeed experts don’t agree politically. Experts like any segment of the human population will vary in the degree of corruption, power, fame, and advancement. There is the go along to get along crowd of experts, the opportunists, and those truly dedicated to their craft.
E. Swanson says:
”What we see in the 2 graphs are filtered curves and the variation depends on the smoothing filter selected. The longer the period of the filter, such as a moving average, the less impact of volcanic events is evident. ”
Wrong. The two graphs only substantially differ in presentation mode. Hausfather has 2000 years more data from 12,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago that encompasses the recovery from the Younger Dryas cooling event. That shrinks the scale of the chart such that his variations in the same times of Easterbrook’s graph look a lot smaller without being smaller (in fact they are larger).
E. Swanson says:
”But, the oceans also filter the effects of volcanic events given their large mass compared with the atmosphere. Also, sulfate deposits from volcanic events in the SH will appear different in ice cores from Greenland compared with the Antarctic and conversely.”
So you are saying effectively that the warming of the past 80 years could be the result of a volcano? Sure sounds like it as you are calling out climate deviations of more than 2 degrees in the 2 graphs as being susceptible of creating blips 250 years in length and larger.
E. Swanson says:
”Look at the graph of the NEEM data which I posted. The data at this depth exhibits sub-yearly resolution and is highly variable. When filtered with a 61 point MA, the variation is heavily smoothed. Of course, as any data analyst knows, moving averages induce aliasing into the resulting curve, so ones eyeball perception may be misled into thinking theres an cycle when there may not be.”
Key words there Swanson ”may not be” does not mean ”none”.
You continue with your bias as now you are creating more uncertainty about the entire body of climate science in order to argue for your bias. . .and you still don’t even know if a doubling of CO2 is capable of actually warming anything sufficiently to account for a significant part (say one third of it) of the last 80 years.
You are doing an excellent job of putting the kibosh on the FUD that arises from the corrupt element of opportunists looking to make fame and fortune for themselves.
Fact is Hausfather’s paper can be looked at carefully and conclude that Eastbrook’s paper underestimated natural climate change and that it go larger with the mulitple corings (I figure that could well be the result of cores taken much closer to the seashores of Greenland where you do have climate length amplification occurring from the total loss of ice nearby).
For example, the climate of Hawaii is so mild because of the sea breezes that blow across the Island giving it the mildest weather of all the US states.
Hunter concluded from my comment that:
That (and what follows) has nothing to do with my comment. As Hausfather noted:
That means that the short term impacts from volcanoes is smoothed out of the data. And, my comment regarding the differences in sulfate found in Greenland vs Antarctica reflects different upper air circulation patterns.
As for any cycles to be found in the data, recall that Easterbrook claimed in 2011 that the PDO was the cause of variation found in the short term temperature record and, coupled with solar variation, the apparent downturn after 1998 was going to continue. It didn’t happen.
Have fun with your project.
E. Swanson says:
”That means that the short term impacts from volcanoes is smoothed out of the data. And, my comment regarding the differences in sulfate found in Greenland vs Antarctica reflects different upper air circulation patterns.”
—————–
Indeed the warming isn’t global. Quite simply some regions are affected by natural climate change more than others. The graphs you produced as evidence (oddly against a graph you didn’t like because you don’t like the guy that made it even though it shows less variation). The changes seen in these Greenland graphs show up 5 times the rate of warming seen for the globe today averaged over 60 to 250 years.
In fact there are excellent arguments that 20 years is way to short to define climate by. NOAA years ago effectively were defining it as 60 years or more. Meaning of course with the plethora of possible means for a change in the weather to rule some of them out as longterm influences one can only extend the definition of climate to something on the order of a 100 years.
Of course climate science effectively did that sometime ago establishing a prediction 100 years out. . .then tried to cut it back to 17 years as they wanted money and power now.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”As for any cycles to be found in the data, recall that Easterbrook claimed in 2011 that the PDO was the cause of variation found in the short term temperature record and, coupled with solar variation, the apparent downturn after 1998 was going to continue. It didnt happen.”
I am not sure Easterbrook made such a prediction as you didn’t provide any source. But what if he did?
Why would that change the science that natural climate change greater than what we have seen in the past 174 years has occurred multiple times?
Hunter guy keeps harping on those instances of relatively large change in the Greenland Ice Cores, ignoring the fact that the Arctic experiences warming (or cooling) at greater rates than the rest of the globe. It’s called Arctic Amplification and can be clearly seen in the satellite record, as I pointed out above.
Hunter ignored what I posted and asks:
Repeat after me: It’s called Arctic Amplification.
Have fun with your project.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter guy keeps harping on those instances of relatively large change in the Greenland Ice Cores, ignoring the fact that the Arctic experiences warming (or cooling) at greater rates than the rest of the globe. Its called Arctic Amplification and can be clearly seen in the satellite record, as I pointed out above.”
Well since science attributes Arctic amplification to the loss of sea ice on the Arctic ocean you need a source showing that Greenland Plateau has been warming for the last 44 years at a faster rate than the globe in general.
But not only that you will have to show it is warming faster than the ice core record as well. Until then its just you making an unsupported claim.
Hunter guy wrote:
AIUI, there’s greater Arctic warming found during freeze season than during melt season. That’s the result of changes in both snow cover and sea-ice. The Greenland ice core data is claimed to be influenced by temperatures both at the source of the WV and the more local temperatures where snow is formed. Early studies of δ18O as a proxy for temperature began more than 60 years ago.
Besides, the Arctic data from RSS does not include Greenland and Antarctica, because the high elevations of the ice strongly influences the data. But, the trends in the RSS data show that over the past 44 years, the Arctic warmed 2.05 C, while the globe warmed 0.96 C. Over a 60 year period, were that rate to continue, the Arctic would warm 2.8 C, not unlike that in your ice core data around 0 CE. The question, of course, is what caused all those relatively large swings in the data.
Have fun with your project.
E. Swanson says:
”AIUI, theres greater Arctic warming found during freeze season than during melt season. Thats the result of changes in both snow cover and sea-ice.”
Thats not on a climate scale. We know that ENSO changes global circulation patterns and we know that ocean oscillations 20 to 40 years change the dominance of one ENSO phase over the other.
I also think volcanoes play a much larger role than recognized at a subclimate scale with a typical volcano causing a couple years of cooling then as the SO2 and chlorine compounds break down into acids they impact the ozone layer for several years allowing more sunlight to pass through the atmosphere.
The ozone layer loss may also be an amplifier of solar cycles and planetary movement cycles. But that would be a change in fundamental thinking of the ozone layer only having a greenhouse effect.
In the end I see a dire need to follow the advice of Dr. Syun Akasofu who said to understand anthropogenic climate change one must first understand natural climate change.
and as I said science doesn’t blame arctic amplification on changes in rates of seasonal snow and ice cover but instead of climate length changes in ice cover which does not occur in areas selected for ice cores. You get arctic amplification mostly from the loss of sea ice cover and lesser so from the retreat of ice sheets and glaciers on the land. Perhaps you could scientifically establish a tiny bit of amplification on the ice sheets if you could show changes in precipitation/snow on the ice sheets which does occur in patterns of an ENSO like duration but falls short of climate duration.
E. Swanson says:
Besides, the Arctic data from RSS does not include Greenland and Antarctica, because the high elevations of the ice strongly influences the data.
——————-
I have been saying that for years that the earth’s surface isn’t well represented by weather stations. For surface records its not just Antarctica and Greenland but virtually all mountain ranges and high plateaus where populations don’t exist.
How many degrees that amounts to in calculating the GHE is very much in question. Again science allowing bias to slip through feeding their billion dollar propaganda program.
Swanson says:
But, the trends in the RSS data show that over the past 44 years, the Arctic warmed 2.05 C, while the globe warmed 0.96 C. Over a 60 year period, were that rate to continue, the Arctic would warm 2.8 C, not unlike that in your ice core data around 0 CE. The question, of course, is what caused all those relatively large swings in the data.
—————-
The Arctic is more than 70% ocean. There is a strong deamplification in antarctic because of it being more than 70% ice covered continent. The one exception is West Antarctic which is a relatively very long and thin peninsula that juts out into the Southern Ocean allowing sea breezes to warm it. But overall the land in the antarctic is warming slower than the southern hemisphere mean and much slower than the global mean (by about `1/2).
I realize there is great eagerness by the corporate lobbyists for maximum funding for sensational science to fund mitigation projects. That explains a lot.
Hunter guy is all over the map with his comments, including a final bit about lobbyists which ignores that most of the corporate lobbyist in D_C have been working against AGW projects for years. He still refuses to acknowledge the fact of Arctic Amplification is plainly seen in the climate record, jumping to the Antarctic and the Ozone Hole as if that influenced the Greenland Ice Cores. BTW, the RSS data covers 60N to 82.5N. The land portion exhibits about the same warming as ocean as may be seen in Roy’s UAH LT.
To understand what those ice cores are telling us, Hunter guy might read THIS PAPER from 1997. It provides considerable enlightenment about the δ18O proxy data as it was understood back then. The understanding at the time was that seasonal influences could be important.
Have fun with your project.
Not true Swanson. You have to follow the money. Trillions are being spent on climate mitigation and research. All that money goes to governments and corporations.
Who pays? Its mostly the consumer. They are poorly informed and poorly organized. The public backlash is always greatly delayed in response to the new power grabbing scheme. But they catch up eventually. Oil companies mostly lobby for special opportunities like subsidies to move into new business ventures.
Like oil tycoon T Boone Pickens who said his proposed wind business would become the biggest deal of his career, bigger than the Gulf Oil deal.
Did Hunter guy do his homework yet?
Have fun with your project.
E. Swanson says:
Did Hunter guy do his homework yet?
——————
What homework? You aren’t talking about that paper that says the models failed to correctly predict how fast the Greenland icesheet should have historically warmed are you?
Hunter guy changes the subject again. I thought we were discussing his claims about the Greenland Ice Cores, the subject of the paper in my last post.
Have fun with your project.
Thats the one I am talking about Swanson. The one where they are trying to devalidate O18 data by using unvalidated climate models that can’t replicate past climates anywhere much less Greenland.
Hunter guy, that paper was state of the art in 1997. Jouzel and the other authors were the experts at the time. From the Abstract, we find:
Hunter guy, the temperatures reported for the Greenland ice cores is the result of models for both the date vs depth and the temperature vs δ18O. Since Hunter doesn’t like models, perhaps he should ignore the data derived from those cores.
They admit they don’t understand why the models don’t match the measurement proxy. Like I said you can’t devalidate a proxy using unvalidated models.
You said: ”Of course, I dont know EXACTLY how the GHE works”
Well thats because nobody can explain how it works. They just took the number they wanted, created a hotspot in the troposphere and the rest then arises from that. The job of gaining working climate models is a game of changing the models until they can at least predict the warming of the first half of the 20th century. After that when emissions had increased by an order of magnitude then they can argue that CO2 is the culprit. But the first half of the 20th century is a global instrument record. The Little ice age, Medieval warming Period, and the Roman Optimum are all multiple proxy based and the current co2 climate models can reproduce them and this paper you offered is just another example of that. Hausfather’s paper you offered up as evidence in another sham claim of yours is suddenly not good enough for you any more. Thats why you are a liar. You know you are lying and will continue to lie to defend something you admit you don’t understand.
Regarding the Greenland Ice Cores, Hunter guy wrote:
Will you get off your high horse? “They” were the people what developed the ice core data in the first instance and “validated” the models I mentioned. You want to use their work even though you don’t accept their analysis. Of course, that paper was from 1997 and lots more work has been done to answer their questions in the years since.
But Hunter changes the subject again, claiming:
I have no idea what you are referring to, or why you conclude that I have lied. You, however, have an agenda, whether you admit it or not.
Have fun with your project.
E. Swanson says:
”Will you get off your high horse? They were the people what developed the ice core data in the first instance and validated the models I mentioned.”
Wrong. Not only do you admittedly not understand what a climate model is or how it works but the people you are talking about didn’t develop the climate models they used.
E. Swanson says:
”But Hunter changes the subject again, claiming:
Hausfather’s paper you offered up as evidence in another sham claim of yours is suddenly not good enough for you any more. Thats why you are a liar.
I have no idea what you are referring to, or why you conclude that I have lied. You, however, have an agenda, whether you admit it or not.”
You said Easterbrooks graph was misleading and offered Hausfather’s graphs and article as proof of that.
Then when you found out there was more natural variation in Hausfather’s graph you started attacking the proxy used in all the Greenland ice core data. You know you don’t understand this but you pretend you do. Thats lying.
I have said my agenda is decent independent unbiased science. I have worked with environmental science for over 30 years. Most natural science starts out with huge amounts of uncertainty and the process is to adjust your models to the observed and measured results rather than vice versa. Nothing wrong with improving monitoring we do that all the time also but the models ALWAYS best match the observations we have. They never see the light of day until they do.
When they don’t we change the models to better match observations we have. . . and we also follow the principle to not believe the models too much. In natural science it can take a long time to develop good models but we aren’t even trying to do that in this politically charged environment.
Hunter guy mis-quotes me, as usual:
And again:
No, that comment was taken directly from Hausfather’s post.
Next, Hunter claimed:
No, I was simply pointing to the now well known fact that the δ18O information represents a combination of source areas, particularly regional ones, and also includes seasonal variation. As a result, there’s some Arctic Amplification in the mix, so the variation is going to be greater than found in the yearly global average.
Lastly, Hunter claims that:
Prove it. We know nothing about you or your professional experience. We don’t even know if you are using your real name, not that it matters, though a professional would do so to add credibility to one’s posts. Hunter then continues to display his ignorance of models:
That’s an impossible standard for weather and climate models, given the uncertainties you mention, not to forget the limits imposed by the available computing power. Your rejection of such efforts out of hand is further proof of your agenda. Of course, your last sentence about the “this politically charged environment” is another example of your obvious bias.
Have fun with your project.
E. Swanson says:
”No, that comment was taken directly from Hausfathers post.
Next, Hunter claimed:”
————————-
Which after you happily used you went after as being misleading. Which only demonstrates a stark lack of consistency.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
No, I was simply pointing to the now well known fact that the δ18O information represents a combination of source areas, particularly regional ones, and also includes seasonal variation.
As a result, theres some Arctic Amplification in the mix, so the variation is going to be greater than found in the yearly global average.
————————-
Which I have already agreed with in part. Yes Hausfather’s is more polluted by arctic sea ice cover regional climate variation than Easterbrook’s. By the time air movement gets to the middle of the Greenland plateau amplification from sea breezes are almost certainly insignificant as they are everywhere, like Death Valley is only about 200 miles from the cold pacific coast.
Seasonal variation is lost in the mix. For example the samplers are aware that they can’t use the last 95 years of data. Why? Because seasonal variation from seasonal ice melt under the sun vs winter permanent darkness melts X distance into the ice pack.
Thus every single 20 year data point in Hausfather’s graph is a 100 year running mean. A anonymously warm or cold year is going to change the numbers by an insignificant fraction. And here you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill after selecting Hausfather’s verbalizations about Easterbrook at their face value. Thats crazy.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
”Thats an impossible standard for weather and climate models, given the uncertainties you mention, not to forget the limits imposed by the available computing power. Your rejection of such efforts out of hand is further proof of your agenda. Of course, your last sentence about the this politically charged environment is another example of your obvious bias.”
————————–
No its not impossible. What one must determine is what is material and what is not material. Roy’s posts on the models in recent history are embarrassingly inaccurate. . .but that holds no candle to how inaccurate they are in creating the early 20th century warming. Thats off the charts demonstrating no skill at all. You seem to think I am talking about perfection but they can’t even sense the direction things are going. If its not warming, the data must be wrong. The ice core record and knowledge that represents natural climate change is just hand waved away. Its pitiful.
Hunter offered his version of Glacier physics:
Except that’s not how things happen over central Greenland. For a glacier, the snow piles up over time into a porous layer called Firn. As the layer thickens, it is compressed, eventually transitioning to solid ice. This process begins with dry snow and proceeds thru other stages until it forms solid ice, trapping air bubbles. The the high elevation glaciers over Greenland, the firn stays in the first stage as dry snow, with little melting.
There’s not enough melt to flood the entire column, especially as the temperature below a few meters is the yearly average, which is quite cold. Thus, the δ18O data can provide evidence of seasonal and regional variations.
E. Swanson says:
Except thats not how things happen over central Greenland. For a glacier, the snow piles up over time into a porous layer called Firn. As the layer thickens, it is compressed, eventually transitioning to solid ice. This process begins with dry snow and proceeds thru other stages until it forms solid ice, trapping air bubbles. The the high elevation glaciers over Greenland, the firn stays in the first stage as dry snow, with little melting.
Theres not enough melt to flood the entire column, especially as the temperature below a few meters is the yearly average, which is quite cold. Thus, the δ18O data can provide evidence of seasonal and regional variations.
——————-
Total BS.
The sun comes up and melts the top layers. Any skier knows that the top most layer of a fresh fallen snow develops a hard crust like after one day and night and the underlying snow loses its fluffiness. The entire issue of the 95 year delay isn’t solely a compacting of the top layers, its and exchange of water isotopes between the layers. If all that happened was compaction they could read the entire 95 years and not have to start the reading before present (except maybe the time between reading and publication).
Then you build a strawman ”Theres not enough melt to flood the entire column”. Of course that isn’t the current thinking. If there were true the entire proxy would have to be thrown out. You only get that stuff going on when people are sensationalizing the ice melt in greenland talking about rivers and water falls inside the ice pack lubricating the ice pack so its in danger of falling off Greenland.
Each dated reading of the o18 isotope is essentially a mean reading of 100 years of the snow that fell above the layer. That even explains where there can be a 50 year difference in the starting date. And why so many papers published in year 2000 talk about 95 years before present instead of Hausfather’s 145 years.
That stuff that probably blew totally over Hausfather’s and your heads and why different papers word the actual starting date differently.
Hunter throws up more stuff for the wall. Glaciology as a scientific field has a long history and there are text books on the subject. HERE’s a TEXT BOOK for those who want to learn more on the subject. Not to forget that there have been lots of reports produced to present the ice core data and describe the findings there from.
He doesn’t understand that back in the late 1990’s, the common meaning of “Before Present” (BP) included a start date of 1950 because all 14C dates were so referenced. As a result, “95 years BP” was 1855, as Hausfather pointed out. The correct starting date to reference depends on the choice of the author.
total BS
You need a silly source declaring this Swanson.
Obviously you have no experience in smoothing and establishing a mean value over a 100 year period. After you have smoothed that data its quite arbitrary which date you declare the sample to be because the water isotopes are a mean mix of isotopes over an approximate hundred year period. Is there some guidance to always pick the oldest date? Seems quite arbitrary. Perhaps you have a link to a study that states the date should be the starting date, the mean date, or the end date.
For the gravitational mixing of water in an ice slush it seems logical to pick either the start date or the mean date as water is denser than ice and its going to mix downwards. So either 1950 or 2000 seem to be good dates to choose between . . .unless of course you can think of a scientific reason it should be the start date. Telling me what is customary doesn’t hold a single milligram of water. Only a mealy mouthed sycophant would just take what he was told and start proselytizing it.
Hunter continues to display his ignorance of the processes which created the Greenland ice cores. His analogy of a skier on snow does not apply to winter in central Greenland. The deeper firn layers don’t become contaminated with melt water from surface melting. The ice layers in the core clearly show evidence of seasonality and year-to-year changes, which could not happen if Hunter’s view were correct.
Anyway, Easterbrook’s graph was taken from Alley’s book and Hunter should admit that Alley used the traditional 14C definition of “BP” as being “before 1950”. As a result, the top of the ice core is dated at 1855, the point at which the firn in the column transitions to ice, sealing the trapped air bubbles.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter continues to display his ignorance of the processes which created the Greenland ice cores. His analogy of a skier on snow does not apply to winter in central Greenland. The deeper firn layers dont become contaminated with melt water from surface melting.
——————-
You are correct the ”deeper” firn layers apparently don’t become so contaminated by melt water that variation can’t be estimated. If it did we wouldn’t have an ice core record at all.
But your frantic arm waving isn’t going anywhere. The fact is the ice cores of gisp2 were taken between 1989 and 1993. So your date of 1855 implies that the most recent 134-139 years was unusable due to these mixing processes still going on and presumably being within the actively ”percolating” layers. That’s a pretty strong implication unless you have a source that says otherwise.
Another and Worse implication would be that they don’t want anybody to see a comparison to the industrial age and modern instrument record like how the tree ring proxies that overlapped the modern temperature record were just erased because they were showing cooling rather than warming during the climate gate scandal.
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/
”Melt layers are formed when the surface snow melts, releasing water to percolate down through the snow pack. They form bubble-free ice layers, visible in the ice core.”
Gee Swanson the ice core data doesn’t even retain CO2 bubbles during the warmer times. That’s fascinating.
Hunter wrote:
That’s not “my date”, it appears to be Alley’s. To gain a further understanding, one would need to read the appropriate references. The text book I referenced above, (which I do not possess), listed the depths in several cores at which the transition from firn to solid ice occurred. My understanding is that melt waters do not percolate very far downward into the firn, given that the temperature of the snow is likely to be below -10 C. You can argue with the book’s authors, if you wish.
Have fun with your project.
Firn is the transitory stage between snow and ice.
Firn becomes glacier ice when the interconnecting air or water-filled passageways between the grains are sealed off.
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacier-processes/from-snow-to-glacier-ice/
So Hunter guy’s been reading a bit. We notice that:
Notice the second point, which was taken from the reference I posted. That time span includes the data from GISP2 which I think was used for Alley’s graph.
Have fun with your project.
Looks like we are done here.
And no I didn’t just read that. I already knew that. It was just all your wrong conclusions that motivated me to go find a source so I could convince you.
And since Antarctica is dryer than Greenland, Antarctica would take longer than Greenland. though that would vary by location and proximity to prevailing winds off the oceans.
So at the level of the current termination of the firn into ice is today gathering water isotopes filling in the gaps and has been doing that for a 100 years or more. The density of ice in comparison is up to close to 20 times as dense as the snow. Ice is 917kg/m3 and fresh snow varies between 50 and 100kg/m3 in the coldest regions it tends to be lighter.
Thus at that termination layer its a combination of water from snows that fell in the most recent past season and snows 100 years ago. That range would make Easterbrook dating within the range and Hausfather’s criticism over the top.
When is the start of the growing season in the Midwest?
https://i.ibb.co/p2Gy2tC/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-04-03-085040.png
200 million years ago the average world temperature was 13 degrees warmer than today.
There was no desert anywhere because CO2 was well over 2000 ppm.
“There was no desert anywhere because CO2 was well over 2000 ppm.”
Please explain how you made that deduction.
A huge part of the southern Sahara has gone green with just a modest increase in CO2. 320 ppm to 420 ppm.
Charles Best
” A huge part of the southern Sahara has gone green with just a modest increase in CO2. 320 ppm to 420 ppm. ”
Some trustworthy source?
What is better known is that the Sahara is currently expanding southwards by ~ 50 km / yr, and will inevitably swallow up the Sahel region over the long term.
The NASA satellite data shows a 15% greening of the Earth since just the year 2000.
Five years ago NASA reported a 2.3% greening, not 15%.
They also said that a large fraction of that comes from tree-planting programs and intensive crop cultivation, not CO2.
Frost free dates in the US upper Midwest are around the start of June. Freezing temperatures in April are a near certainty.
Notably, the USDA revised planting date tables a few years back indicating real people with an enormous financial interest in climate norms implicitly acknowledge the warming trend.
It has been well documented for a very long time that zones move around over various time periods.
Northern limit of armadillos, for instance…
Averages change a little over time…no graph of temps is a straight line at any time interval or scale.
Defining when the growing season starts is a highly subjective question, asked as such. Depends on what you are growing, if you want to take a small risk, moderate risk, or no risk of a dieback after germination, requiring a replanting.
Every crop has it’s own peculiarities regarding such parameters as hardiness (ability to withstand cold of a certain temp).
What is the actual temperature value in degrees C of the zero baseline on Dr Spencer’s UAH Satellite-Based Temperature plots ?
Time runs faster on the Moon than on Earth.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68722032
How does this affect the spinner v non-spinner debate?
Your BBC link is referring to the “measurement of time”, not “time”.
And no, nonsense won’t help your Moon spinning nonsense.
Denier of relativity too, Clint. Should we add evolution, plate tectonics, the spherical earth and the moon landings to your list?
Your cult can’t even understand the ball-on-a-string, Ant.
That’s why you have to result to throwing crap against the wall.
Grow up.
Ooh, the ball on string is another thing I was wanting to make sure I was clear on.
If you could…does the thought experiment describe exactly how the string is held and how exactly it is spun?
I mean, does it stipulate that the person holding the string is facing the ball with arms held out in front, turning their whole body around like they was standing on a lazy Susan, or does it say specifically if the person is holding it more like overhead and just twirling the arm just so?
I am asking because it the second case, every time I do it, the string itself rotates a turn for every revolution, and the ball spins on an axis defined by the attachment point of the string, you see, one spin-type turn for every orbit-like revolution around me.
You know, like the way a really long coil of rope or an extension cord gets all twisted up when you wrap it up into a coil between your palm and elbow to store it, you know?
I used to do this certain kind of work where I had to buy 1000 spools of rope, and they always sold it on a cardboard spindle, so I sometimes had to get it all back to neat when the cardboard got wet and it all got into a mess like you would not believe!
made my boss so mad to see me futzing with it, being that he was paying my a whole bunch more an hour that a coil of rope cost.
Some people turn bright red when they get angry…did you know that?
So I was wondering about that, since I want to make sure I got it right.
Oops, that should say 1000′ spool of rope, One thousand feet long, for any metrically identifying readers.
nic…you are reading too much into the ball on a string model. It was introduced only to clarify that a ball attached to a string keeps the same face pointed at the external axis but does not allow the ball to rotate about its COG. It was never intended as a model of lunar rotation, which is a unique interaction between gravity and momentum that cannot be observed naturally on the surface.
Since the Moon also keeps the same face pointed at Earth, it is equally obvious it cannot rotate about a local axis. That property reveals curvilinear motion with no local rotation.
Many people here, and on the Net, including NASA, are confusing the change in orientation of the near face, wrt the stars as a rotation about a local axis. However, such a rotation requires that the circumference actually rotates about the COG. That never happens on the Moon since the near face, the far face, the COG, and all points between, at any instant, are moving in parallel.
The fact that the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth should be the clue. It’s moving in the same manner as a locomotive running around a circular track. In order to rotate the locomotive through 180 degrees, so it runs in the opposite direction, a turntable is required. Yet spinner think the fact one side of the locomotive changes orientation through 360 degrees per revolution of the track is the same as the locomotive rotating though 360 degrees about its COG.
It’s no coincidence that those who believe that are also climate alarmists.
aq…”Denier of relativity too, Clint. Should we add evolution, plate tectonics, the spherical earth and the moon landings to your list?”
***
Anytime you have scientific proof of evolution, plate tectonics, time, the Big Bang, etc., I’d love to hear it.
Hmm…
Well, first thing I am thinking is, without going into the specifics of all of these details, that for me at least, I think this may be one of those subjects where people that are in one camp on one of the separate issues of CO2 alarmism, and the lack of rotation of the moon, may not overlap with each other with any certainty.
IOW, I am pretty sure this may be more like opinions on vaccines vs political party…there are people on each side in each political camp.
I have not reached a state of making anything of the ball and string model, because since I am unclear on key details of the exact particulars of the construct, I do not have enough evidence to form an informed opinion or a rational, objective, conclusion.
Like how juries are instructed not to form opinions about the case until all of the evidence has been presented yada yada yada.
But to elaborate on why I am wanting to clarify the details I inquired about, it seems to me that in the arms outstretched and standing on a turntable case, the ball is attached directly to a larger object that IS spinning about it’s COG.
While in the hand over hand wrist flick methos of whirling the ball around, the string is actually being twisted about an axis extending through the center of the string, imparting a spin with the identical axis on the ball.
If you just do it using an unmarked ball, or if one is not familiar with the types of motions of the hand that impart a twist to a string, one might easily not realize in this second method, the ball is spinning, but the axis of rotation is tilted 90 degrees from the from the instantaneous vector of the forward motion of the ball.
In any case, I think I may possibly have reasoned out a line of argumentation that if followed, can resolved this disagreement to everyone’s satisfaction, thus healing this troublesome schism once and for all.
It proceeds from considering exactly what occurs if we slowly adjust the inclation of the axis of rotation of the moon from the plane of it’s roation, in slight by continuing increments, until we arrive at a moon that at no time different substantially in motion parameters from the previous iteration, but eventually come to be rotating like the ball on the string that spinning on an axis of rotation that aligns with the string. IOW< an axis with points directly at Earth.
Now we get into complex orbital and rotation questions before we get very far, such as, does the moon, like the Earth, undergo axial precession with regard to it's orientation, and if so, which Frame of reference is this precession relative too?
For Earth, precession of the rotational axis is defined as the precession of the equinoxes along the plane of the ecliptic with regard to the fixed stars.
Recall all the fun they had with accounting for the motions of the heavenly bodies back when people assumed the Earth was the center of the Universe, and everything rotated around it?
Wheels within wheels…
Now imagine if those same people all lived on the moon, and all observations of the motions of the planets and the Sun and the Earth had to be modeled in a way that accounted for all of these motions.
This is of course why the inertial reference frame is in high favor with those who send rockets to other plants and such.
For any reader who does not know what this means, the Inertial Reference Frame refers to looking at the solar system and all of the motions taking place, from the point of view of someone floating in space at some distance above the Solar System, with "above" referring to a line extended out from the center of the plane of the ecliptic at 90 degrees. IOW, from a point above the north pole of the Sun and far enough away that the entire solar system is within the field of view.
(at least, that is how I always pictured it back in the day…it's been a while since…)
Imagine trying to figure out where to aim your rocket if one switches reference frames when any particular body is considered in isolation?
How do you know where some body will be if you are lifting off from the another body (Any two, pick em, space station orbiting the moon to one orbiting Ganymede) if you assume as a given that one body in particular is fixed and not rotating?
Anyway, this is just basic details and removed very far from matters best taken on Faith or as a matter of dogma. Imagine trying to get anywhere if one notion has to stay fixed and all other ideas and discoveries and knowledge must be shaped to suit this foundational idea? Oh, wait, I mean if we just keep changing our minds as we acquire new information, or consider new scenarios?
After all, I know very few people who could tell you what exactly each of the different months refer to, even if they just read all of the definitions an hour ago.
Here, for reference use of the unwashed lurkers in attendance, from Wikipedia page "Month""
"The sidereal month is defined as the Moon's orbital period in a non-rotating frame of reference (which on average is equal to its rotation period in the same frame). It is about 27.32166 days (27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11.6 seconds). It is closely equal to the time it takes the Moon to twice pass a "fixed" star (different stars give different results because all have a very small proper motion and are not really fixed in position).
A synodic month is the most familiar lunar cycle, defined as the time interval between two consecutive occurrences of a particular phase (such as new moon or full moon) as seen by an observer on Earth. The mean length of the synodic month is 29.53059 days (29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 2.8 seconds). Due to the eccentricity of the lunar orbit around Earth (and to a lesser degree, the Earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun), the length of a synodic month can vary by up to seven hours.
The tropical month is the average time for the Moon to pass twice through the same equinox point of the sky. It is 27.32158 days, very slightly shorter than the sidereal month (27.32166) days, because of precession of the equinoxes.
An anomalistic month is the average time the Moon takes to go from perigee to perigeethe point in the Moon's orbit when it is closest to Earth. An anomalistic month is about 27.55455 days on average.
The draconic month, draconitic month, or nodal month is the period in which the Moon returns to the same node of its orbit; the nodes are the two points where the Moon's orbit crosses the plane of the Earth's orbit. Its duration is about 27.21222 days on average."
Honestly, most people, the vast majority, have no idea that the word month is a cognate of the word Moon, let alone have idea notion whatsoever that there are different types of months.
Crazy, since people thousands of years ago not only knew (at least some of) them, but measured them and calculated them accurately enough to predict the reoccurrence of Eclipses.
Gordon
Time?? You deny time??
If there is no time then there is no ordering of events.
What distinguishes your birth from your current decrepitude and your death.
“… That property reveals curvilinear motion with no local rotation. …
… the near face, the far face, the COG, and all points between, at any instant, are moving in parallel. …
… Its moving in the same manner as a locomotive running around a circular track…”
Wrong on all counts. A locomotive on an elliptical track (even if it sped up and slowed down appropriately) would exhibit the wrong libration. Your conclusions are refuted by the actual moon.
Actually all you are doing Tim is acting like a snob. Science defines it own terms and teaches them in classrooms.
But in real practice after you graduate you will find they don’t always follow the definitions they taught you.
Then when somebody notices this fact and challenges it those same teachers will start making up all sorts of nonsense stuff to try to put the genie back in the bottle. It’s actually pretty comical.
Bill, you are free to create your own definitions. You are not free to deny observed facts.
A locomotive on an elliptical track will NOT move the same way as the moon. If a hypothesis disagrees with observations it must be discarded in favor of a more accurate hypothesis.
of course it won’t tim. the moon does not go around the earth on railroad tracks! i have no idea why it should. where the heck did you get that crazy idea?
“where the heck did you get that crazy idea?”
Its not ‘my crazy idea’; it is Gordon’s proposed model. It’s actually a fairly reasonable, non-crazy proposal to model the shape of an orbit and the orientation of the moon as it orbits.
This model creates libration naturally (which makes it a step up from ball-on-string which can’t model libration). The libration turns out to be not quite accurate, but it is still a useful model to guide us toward a correct understanding of libration.
Everything that rotates librates Tim.
You have your definition and viewpoint of what a rotation is and isn’t then you cherry pick to call one kind of rotation as a non-rotation when it librates. What we are dealing here is with a an ill-informed illuminati attitude that thinks everything thing it thinks is right and what anybody else thinks is wrong.
Which side are the spinners?
Seriously, it is not at all clear which is which to me, unless it is just that someone misspoke and got it exactly backwards by mistake.
“Spinners” believe Moon spins.
Earth both spins and orbits. Moon only orbits. The false concept that Moon does both started centuries ago, when astrology was considered “science”. The mistake was never corrected because it affects nothing. But it became so indoctrinated in colleges and universities that even NASA is afraid to correct the mistake. Over time, the mistake was even embellished by the violation of physics called “tidal locking”.
All easily debunked.
Oh, OK, that is what I had thought.
Seems a little contrived though, and awkward.
I am asking everyone who shares by opinion of a Lunacetric Universe on a moon that does not spin, to refer to me and my enlightened ilk as Lunatics…capital “L”.
Please.
Did you hear yet, Mister R, about my recent trip to the North Pole of the Moon and the results of my subsequent month long observations made from a vantage point there?
If so, let me caution you in advance not to pay any mind to the ruffians and scoundrels who have made several soon-to-be-pointedly addressed allegations and intimations regarding my veracity and, I suspect, even my very sincerity!
Oh, and of course…Thank you for the reply.
I really do appreciate it.
The reason I asked is because I do need to get a few items of record straight, since at the present time I am unable to defend myself against the sadly accurate observation that I have not been “keeping up with the debate”.
I confess it seems to have progressed some since I last checked in a few years or so ago on it.
Moves ahead faster’n a 2nd semester engineering calculus night class.
I really do like it when there is a little window of time to edit out typos in these blogs.
Not that I need it very offen, since I almost never make any tyops.
“Time runs faster on the Moon than on Earth.”
Aw heck, that’s nuthin!
The big issue is that the metal bar that defines the kilogram is mysteriously getting lighter!
See here:
https://www.npr.org/2009/08/20/112003322/this-kilogram-has-a-weight-loss-problem
Maybe it got some Semaglutide on it?
The kilogram hasn’t been defined by that bar for five years now.
I would expect it’s weight to increase.
My bathroom scales tell me I am getting heavier as I get older. I also find it harder to climb hills, climb stairs and lift heavy weights.
Incontrovertible evidence that gravity is getting stronger.
Mr Pecker also seems to be spending more time in a state of minimum gravitational potential.
“The kilogram hasnt been defined by that bar for five years now.”
Shew!
That’s a relief!
ent…re time running faster on Moon, this is what they claim…
“Because of the different gravitational field strength on the Moon, time moves quicker there relative to Earth – 58.7 microseconds every day”.
***
One needs to step back and examine the statement. Where is this time that runs faster? Obviously, they are referring to a clock, but a clock generates time, it does not measure it. A clock actually measures the rotational period of the Earth and is calibrated in divisions of that period. The fundamental division the second is derived by dividing the rotational period by 24 hours/day x 60 minute/day x 60 second/hour = 86,400 seconds.
I am sure they are using an atomic clock on the Moon so lets look at how it works. It is based on the timing of electron transitions in a Cesium atom. What does that tell us about time…nada. However, it is conceivable that a lower gravitational force could affect the transition rate of the electrons.
One argument offered by the scientifically-challenged is that taking an atomic clock on an airplane to altitude demonstrates time dilation. The inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, doubted that due to inherent errors in such an experiment. I think the apparent time dilation is likely due to flying the atomic clocks at altitude, hence a change gravitational force, albeit light.
I have no idea what one is meaning to say when they state that they believe time does not exist except inside the human mind.
Objects move, whether we observe them or not, no, or yes?
I think I best find out is all agree on this before getting into the more nuanced details.
” A clock actually measures the rotational period of the Earth”
Surely a clock on the Moon would measure the rotation of the Moon?
If you need a separate system of clocks to measure time on the Moon, this is evidence that the Moon rotates.
Ent continues to confuse “orbiting” with “spinning”. He’s the one that believes passenger jets fly backward.
He’s so confused.
OK. We are in a warning trend. Is that anything we should all worry about?
Less snow for ski slopes perhaps?
Not up my way in Vancouver, Canada. Winter as usual, don’t notice any warming at all. Skiing as usual, there is still snow on our local mountains. The real skiing is at Whistler, which is well inland and several degrees colder than the coast. Whistler VIllage at base of mountains is at 2215 feet (675 metres).
I mean, we are talking about a 0.5C blip and people are talking as if it is a 5.0 warming, which would be most welcome around here in winter. If you turned up your home thermometer by 0.5C you’d never notice it.
As Walter and I have discussed, the warming blip is a statistical anomaly based on warming in a few locales on the planet. It is by no means a representation of actual warming globally.
This current situation is all the proof needed to conclude that climate is poorly understood and difficult to predict. One year ago, nobody saw this coming.
Tim S
Don’t tell me that you really would confound long term climate evaluations with the – indeed unpredictable – single HTE event…
Did you see Pinatubo and El Chichon coming?
Or, according to the Japanese Met Agency, which publishes the ‘coolest’ surface temperatures, the huge difference between 1997/98
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1998/gridtemp199802e.png
and 2015/16?
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2016/gridtemp201602e.png
The models certainly did not predict it.
You KNOW that models make no attempt to predict year-to-year variability.
“This current situation is all the proof needed to conclude that climate is poorly understood and difficult to predict. One year ago, nobody saw this coming.”
Not really. That is dichotomous thinking.
We understand a great deal about climate change in recent decades. But there are still mysteries and uncertainties.
That is why it is an active area of science.
The monthly mean sunspot number (blue) and 13-month smoothed monthly sunspot number (red) for the last five cycles.
https://i.ibb.co/1mKbyYn/wolfmms.png
Now plot the global temperatures over the same time period. It might be interesting to see what sort of correlation we get.
Some years ago I made such a plot:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XwvXfhkL5XcRBbsT09CybDsVNI_d7s-m/view
All time series were uniformly scaled to the percentage of their respective highest values, btw allowing to compare series with highly different value ranges without using arbitrary scaling factors.
I would wonder if there would be anything terribly different nowadays.
barry…from IPCC AR5…”The rate of warming over the past 15 years (19982012; 0.05 [0.05 to +0.15] C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (19512012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade)”.
***
The IPCC likes to play with the truth. What kind of an error margin is -0.05 to +0.15 C/decade? Elsewhere, they called it a hiatus and dictionary dot come defines a hiatus as…”a pause or gap in a sequence, series, or process”.
The IPCC even refers to it openly as a pause. That means there was no significant warming between 1998 and 2012, some 15 years. It was actually about 18 years according to UAH data.
Why would warming caused by a trace gas stop warming for 15 years? And why would CO2 produce three relatively major spikes in 1998, 2016, and 2023, then disappear for years in-between.
As I pointed out, including the Monckton pause, there was a 21 years flat tend over the past 25 years. The reason there has been a statistical trend are mysterious spurts of warming following the 1998 and 2016 Ens. Prior to 1998, the trend had been below the baseline for 18 years.
Suddenly, following the 1998 EN, there was a spurt of true warming (John Christy) that I estimate to have been about 0.2C. Following the 2016 EN, the global average never did return to the baseline as did the 1998 EN, albeit briefly. The same kind of spurt occurred in 1977 and lead to the discovery of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So that’s at least 0.5C of unexplained warming since 1977, all of it occurring as spikes in the global average.
If Tsonis et al are correct, recent warming could be the effect of ocean oscillations like ENSO, the AMO and the PDO working together. In a few years they might start working in opposition.
“Why would warming caused by a trace gas stop warming for 15 years?”
The low trend doesn’t mean underlying warming stopped. There is year to year variability that can mask the long term trend if you pick your dates carefully enough. We’ve had numerous “pauses” throughout the record, but its just an artefact of starting the trend analysis at a very warm year, which 1998 was. The IPCC explains it further in the reference from the Technical Summary that you pointed at a few years ago.
Well, you didn’t quote the full reference, – you just wanted to show that IPCC used the word ‘hiatus’. Any further context was inconvenient to your argument.
“The same kind of spurt occurred in 1977 and lead to the discovery of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So thats at least 0.5C of unexplained warming since 1977, all of it occurring as spikes in the global average.”
We also see a “step-jump” from 2016 – the year of another super el Nino.
We may see another “step-jump” following the current el Nino temp spike.
This doesn’t mean that el Ninos cause permanent global warming. It means that the “step-jumps” aren’t real, and the data looks that way because starting each period from a strong el Nino is bound to give you a series of plateaus overlaying an underlying warming trend.
You can see the same “step-jump” pattern with any data that has variability and a rising trend. Roy posted an article on it here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/
“Why did I do this? As a couple of people already guessed, it was mostly to show how a linear trend superimposed upon a cycle can yield periods of rapid change, followed by no change, then rapid change once again. In other words, a linear trend combined with a sinusoidal cycle can lead to plateaus.”
If there was no warming trend (feel free to treat that as “given that” if you really must), do you believe that there would be no variability in global temperatures, and at multiple time scales?
Although you try to claim that we ascribe only one cause to changing temperatures, it really appears that it is you who doesn’t acknowledge other causes of variability.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Although you try to claim that we ascribe only one cause to changing temperatures, . . . ”
Who claims that? You refuse to say what you believe causes changing temperatures, so that you can deny having claimed anything at all!
What do you think causes temperatures to change? Do any of your reasons have anything to do with CO2? Or a GHE which you can’t actually describe?
All you can do is waffle, avoiding saying anything specific. Changing temperatures? Given up on “global warming”? Waffle, waffle, waffle! All implication and innuendo.
There is no GHE – accept reality, or have the guts to do say why you reject it.
aq…I have offered my opinion on that. I think the warming we are experiencing is due to natural variability with the variability mainly coming over the long term than the short term.
Also, we are likely still recovering from the Little Ice Age. I base that on the views of Syun Akasofu who calculated recovery from the LIA as occurring about 0.5C/century.
Interesting how you accept the word of a denier unthinkingly and without question, yet block out everything that comes from the vast bulk of scientists.
“Natural variability” still has causes.
“Recovering from the Little Ice Age” still must have a cause.
What are those causes?
AQ,
You wrote
“Although you try to claim that we ascribe only one cause to changing temperatures, . . . ”
Who claims that? You refuse to say what you believe causes changing temperatures, so that you can deny having claimed anything at all!
What do you think causes temperatures to change? Do any of your reasons have anything to do with CO2? Or a GHE which you cant actually describe?
All you can do is waffle, avoiding saying anything specific. Changing temperatures? Given up on “global warming”? Waffle, waffle, waffle! All implication and innuendo.
There is no GHE accept reality, or have the guts to do say why you reject it.
Just demanding “What are those causes?” without being able to state why you are seeking an answer, achieves little – except to make you look like you are doing your best to avoid saying anything specific about anything at all.
What an idiotic waste of time you are!
Gordo wrote:
As usual, Gordo doesn’t make any attempt to provide a reference for that claim. The dates for the LIA are rather uncertain as the definition depends on the data set used. Not to forget that much of the pre-instrument data is proxy stuff, mixed with anecdotal records of the effects of local events. It’s well known that a few very large volcanoes erupted in locations far away from Europe, thus their effects tend to get lumped into the larger hearsay record.
The self-contradictory nature of the views of ‘skeptics’ is evident to anyone who follows their arguments.
Proxies for temperature are regularly waved off as totally unreliable, including by Gordon. And those same proxies are alternately relied on, as is the case with the ‘recovery from LIA’ talking point.
barry,
You wrote –
“The self-contradictory nature of the views of skeptics is evident to anyone who follows their arguments.”
No skeptic could possible argue with the description of the GHE which you can’t actually provide, could they?
There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and continues to do so. Even an object on the surface cools every night.
No argument there? Why am I not surprised? All you can do is whine and complain, but you refuse to be specific about what you believe in! Go on, tell me the role of the GHE in nightly surface cooling. Feel free to cover all nighttime lengths – from the shortest, at the solstice, to the six months of polar regions.
How hard can it be?
Flynnson wrote:
Flynnson keeps asking the same dumb question, even though he has already provided an answer to his red herring. HERE was my comment in reply
Swanson, please stop trolling.
SILSO Predicted Sunspot Number has been updated to cross the red line
https://i.postimg.cc/7L5Z7LB1/solar-cycle-progression.png
As always, Robertson is simply distorting facts about the temperatures recorded by surface stations and UAH in his region:
” Not up my way in Vancouver, Canada. Winter as usual, dont notice any warming at all. ”
…
” As Walter and I have discussed, the warming blip is a statistical anomaly based on warming in a few locales on the planet. It is by no means a representation of actual warming globally. ”
*
This is a pure lie.
Here is the (very local) data for temperatures collected in the same 2.5 degree grid cell as that encompassing Vancouver, BC, CA:
The center of the grid cell is at [48.75N – 123.75W], a place on Vancouver Island:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/48%C2%B045'00.0%22N+123%C2%B045'00.0%22W/@48.7500035,-124.3106943,9z/data=!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d48.75!4d-123.75?hl=en&entry=ttu
Surface of this tiny region (at a latitude of 48.75N): 51,201 km2.
*
The two graphs below show two plots:
– the raw data average of all GHCN daily stations available in the grid cell (red);
– the LT data collected by UAH for the grid cell.
1. Anomaly based comparison:
*
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1et2MVXgC7Htzc3ing1E5D3ABR60lIqyh/view
2. For those who feel the need to doubt anomalies, the same data in absolute form:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HVI6cFMxkr6V838aPv5FVYbnhluNwE8M/view
*
Here are the anomaly trends:
1979-now
– surface: 0.20 +- 0.04
– low trop: 0.12 +- 0.05
2000-now
– surface: 0.30 +- 0.10
– low trop: 0.22 +- 0.11
2010-now
– surface: 0.47 +- 0.25
– low trop: 0.56 +- 0.28
*
The trends for the absolute data are similar but show, due to the annual cycle, very high standard errors – as explained in 2016 by… Roy Spencer in person.
That’s one of the reasons why UAH never shows absolute data – only anomalies.
{ For those who need it, however, the UAH team publishes, for all four observed atmospheric layers (LT, MT, TP and LS), a 2.5 degree grid climatology containing, for each of the 9,504 grid cells, the 1991-2020 average.
Adding, cell by cell, this average allows for a correct reconstruction of absolute data. }
*
People like Robertson are incompetent boasters unable to technically contradict the data shown above, hence polemically discredit it.
Too bad you were not here last winter to experience the cold for yourself. You would rather fudge numbers and call people liars. Such a waste of space.
Accuweather, a site run by a denier, shows one noticeable cold snap in Vancouver that lasted for about a week in January.
Robertson
I don’t need to be in Vancouver to see how cold it has been on Jan 12/13/14: all I have to do is to download the GHCN daily Vancouver station data newer than my last generation.
Here is the daily output for 2024 (6 C higher than in 1968, btw):
CA001106CL2 BC_PORT_MOODY_GLENAYRE________ 2024 1 12 -22.0 (C)
CA001105658 BC_N_VANC_GROUSE_MTN_RESORT___ 2024 1 12 -20.0
CA001105658 BC_N_VANC_GROUSE_MTN_RESORT___ 2024 1 13 -19.0
CA001101708 BC_CLOVERDALE_EAST____________ 2024 1 12 -14.5
CA001106CL2 BC_PORT_MOODY_GLENAYRE________ 2024 1 13 -14.5
CA001108910 BC_WHITE_ROCK_CAMPBELL_SCIENTI 2024 1 12 -14.4
CA001108395 BC_VANCOUVER_INTL_A___________ 2024 1 13 -13.7
CA001101708 BC_CLOVERDALE_EAST____________ 2024 1 13 -13.5
CA001106178 BC_PITT_MEADOWS_CS____________ 2024 1 13 -13.4
CA001108395 BC_VANCOUVER_INTL_A___________ 2024 1 12 -13.4
etc
Grouse Mountain you can exclude anyway: it’s located above 1,000 m altitude.
*
And?
Do you think that such a little cold snap can change anything to what happens since 2010?
*
Look at the coldest monthly averages for Vancouver’s environ since 1900:
1950 1 -9.81 (C)
1937 1 -6.85
1916 1 -6.80
1969 1 -6.68
1907 1 -6.58
1930 1 -5.78
1957 1 -5.34
1949 1 -5.21
1936 2 -5.08
1909 1 -4.43
…
2024 1 +1.25 (position 261 in the sort)
What the heck are you braying about, Robertson? As always, you just place your gut feeling above real data.
*
” You would rather fudge numbers and call people liars. Such a waste of space. ”
I call you indeed a liar, Robertson, especially when you talk about scientists like Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace etc etc – and laymen like… me.
Dachshund Eben
” All that anclebiting Bindidog does is reposting old numbers everybody already has and acts like he discovered something… ”
Show us what you exactly mean, Dachshund, instead of cowardly insinuating.
Binny,
You wrote –
“People like Robertson are incompetent boasters unable to technically contradict the data shown above, hence polemically discredit it.”
Historical weather observations are a matter of record.
Are you trying to say something useful? Does your analysis of the data reveal anything that a competent 12 year old cannot?
I suppose you believe in something, but you seem to be keeping it secret. Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.
And as always, Flynnson can’t escape his boring blah blah.
Binny,
You wrote
“People like Robertson are incompetent boasters unable to technically contradict the data shown above, hence polemically discredit it.”
Historical weather observations are a matter of record.
Are you trying to say something useful? Does your analysis of the data reveal anything that a competent 12 year old cannot?
I suppose you believe in something, but you seem to be keeping it secret. Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.
Writing “And as always, Flynnson cant escape his boring blah blah.” just demonstrates your level of competence.
All that anclebiting Bindidog does is reposting old numbers everybody already has and acts like he discovered something
Only once in a great while he makes a prediction like this, that’s the posts you save to embarrass him later
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1660007
“Ancle”??
Trump university?
Dachshund Eben
There is only ONE little, aggressive and impolite ankle-biting boy, and that’s YOU and nobody else.
Your incompetence and lack of any technical skills are best show by your recent, genial outputs:
https://postimg.cc/HcK8tPhT
https://postimg.cc/47qCx3rp
All stuff of absolutely outstanding quality :–)
“There is only ONE little, aggressive and impolite ankle-biting boy, and thats YOU and nobody else.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Advice from Newton…
“Truth is the offspring of silence and meditation. I keep the subject constantly before me and wait ’till the first dawnings open slowly, by little and little, into a full and clear light”.
This is EXACTLY what YOU never managed to do.
Newton was a genius: EXACTLY the contrary of what YOU are.
“This is EXACTLY what YOU never managed to do.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
” Bindidon, please stop trolling. ”
Zu Befehl, Obersturmbannführer Flynnsohn!
“Zu Befehl, Obersturmbannfhrer Flynnsohn!”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Said by Binny, who has not the slightest idea what Newton was talking about.
Einstein must have had a similar problem to Binny. Although he claimed something similar to Newton re problem solving, he completely missed the fact that time does not exist.
Newton must have been aware of the problem of time. He built sundials and must have realized time on a sundial is totally dependent on the rotation of the Earth on it axis wrt the Sun. He even tweaked his sundials to allow for the Sun appearing to be lower in the southern sky in winter.
In the days of Newton, clocks were few and far between and locals in smaller towns had to rely solely on the Sun to determine time of day.
There is no doubt in my mind that Newton was a superior scientist to Einstein who dabbled mainly in thought experiments. Newtonian physics still prevails today even though Einstein groupies have anointed their authority figure as the new Newton. The truth is, we need Newtonian physics whereas Einsteinian physics has no real application. Einstein himself admitted as much.
12,000 years ago, the Ice Age ended. The angle of the Earth’s inclination to the perpendicular to the ecliptic then increased and reached a maximum about 9 thousand years ago. Since 8 thousand years Neolithic farmers from Anatolia colonized Europe (as confirmed by genetic studies). Now the angle of inclination is decreasing and is in mid-decline. In about 8 thousand years, another ice age is inevitable. Due to the constant density of the troposphere (with spikes in water vapor during El Nino periods) and the accumulation of heat in the oceans, large global temperature changes cannot take place. A long-term decline in solar activity will cause significant changes in ozone production and distribution, which will significantly change the winter circulation due to the weakening of the polar vortex in the Northern Hemisphere.
“Recent advances in archaeogenetics have confirmed that the spread of agriculture from the Middle East to Europe was strongly correlated with the migration of early farmers from Anatolia about 9,000 years ago, and was not just a cultural exchange.”
Although this stuff is interesting, what is the relevance of this in relation to what is happening now?
BTW – the other main factor in determining the onset of GLACIAL PERIODS (not ice ages) is the orbital eccentricity. It is still 5000 years from reaching its most circular orbit, which is the LEAST conducive part of its phase for cooling.
AQ,
Well, that’s a complete waste of time, isn’t it?
“Although this stuff is interesting, what is the relevance of this in relation to what is happening now?”
Why do you ask? You can’t actually say, can you?
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Vintage 2019:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
What are you braying about?
How the heck can the tr0lliest of all tr0lls ask others to stop tr0lling?
“What are you braying about?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“How the heck can the tr0lliest of all tr0lls ask others to stop tr0lling?”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
So, the Earth is like a spinning top that can vary its axis as it spins? Also, its orbit can vary. Both would certainly explain ice ages.
It’s unlikely that would explain the more recent Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age which happened almost back to back in a relative sense. I have often wondered if there is not something more in the universe we don’t know about, like some sort of fine debris or gases, that we pass through as part of the galaxy, tat effectively reduce solar input in the short term.
“In about 8 thousand years, another ice age is inevitable.”
Probably not.
“Based on orbital models, the cooling trend initiated about 6,000 years ago will continue for another 23,000 years.[40] Slight changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters may, however, indicate that, even without any human contribution, there will not be another glacial period for the next 50,000 years.[41] It is possible that the current cooling trend might be interrupted by an interstadial phase (a warmer period) in about 60,000 years, with the next glacial maximum reached only in about 100,000 years.[42]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation#Next_glacial_period
‘It’s unlikely that would explain the more recent Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age which happened almost back to back in a relative sense. I have often wondered if there is not something more in the universe we dont know about, like some sort of fine debris or gases, that we pass through as part of the galaxy, tat effectively reduce solar input in the short term.”
Have you ever considered using the search function on your computer to find out if anyone has investigated the causes of the MWP and LIA?
barry, please stop trolling.
Effects of apsidal precession on the seasons with the eccentricity and ap/peri-helion in the orbit exaggerated for ease of viewing. The seasons shown are in the northern hemisphere and the seasons will be reverse in the southern hemisphere at any given time during orbit. Some climatic effects follow chiefly due to the prevalence of more oceans in the Southern Hemisphere.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Precession_and_seasons.svg/800px-Precession_and_seasons.svg.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession#/media/File:Precession_and_seasons.svg
Currently, summer and spring in the northern hemisphere are longer than autumn and winter. In 5,000 years autumn and summer will be longer than winter and spring, in 10,000 years autumn and winter will be longer than spring and summer in the northern hemisphere.
And… any idea why you tell us this?
Therefore.
https://i.ibb.co/PG7f3GP/gfs-spole-sat-t2anom-d1.png
So you can plan your retirement accordingly.
So that 5000 or 10000 years from now you can justify the temperature of Antarctica way back on April 4 2024??
What a nonsensical reply, Palmowski!
The alarmist whiners AQ and Binny line up to offer their inane ad homs.
Gordon – In relation to my response, perhaps you should learn what an ad hom actually is.
“Gordon In relation to my response, perhaps you should learn what an ad hom actually is.”
AQ, please stop trolling.
Robertson dares to speak about ‘inane adhoms’…
Hear hear.
He, Robertson, is the guy who often enough uses to insult persons with name calling like
– 'cheâting SÔB'
or even
– 'âsshôle'.
“Robertson dares to speak about inane adhoms”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Current temperatures in Antarctica.
https://i.ibb.co/NSwkBVn/ventusky-temperature-2m-20240405t2100.jpg
Oh, sorry
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=-56;-14;1&l=temperature-2m
ren…it’s interesting that as the day proceeds, the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula warms from -39F to -30F (-40C to -34C). This is the area on Antarctica the alarmists claim has warmed.
Anyone who has experienced temps of -40C knows there is nothing warm about it.
Current temperatures in Antarctica.
https://tinyurl.com/Ant-GHCN-daily-vs-UAH
26 lonesome GHCN daily stations located within 17 (seventeen) 2.5 degree grid cells, compared to about 1,500 cells in UAH LT… amazing.
UAH’s land-only trend for the South Pole is higher than that obtained from the station data (0.09 vs. 0.02 C / decade).
“More than 334,500 customers are without power in Maine as a spring nor’easter dumps several inches of heavy, wet snow, knocking over trees and power lines.”
Palmowski
Have you ever been to the USA?
Everywhere from the East Coast to the West Coast power lines look like they did in Germany in the late 1950s.
So it’s no wonder that every really bad snowstorm slashes them down.
California is not in danger of drought this spring.
https://i.ibb.co/RCYyZK0/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f024.png
https://i.ibb.co/yk624zS/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-04-04-225308.png
Is this to be taken in the same way as your claim from 12 months ago that there is no chance of an El Nino this year?
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
Is this the best AQ has to offer re Ren’s comment, digging up dirt from a year ago?
AQ: Are you saying that you agree with Ren (for this year at least)?
RLH
HUH?? Ren said there was no chance of an El Nino for 23/24, yet we had a strong El Nino. In what sense can that be interpreted as me agreeing with ren?
AQ,
It was a simple question. Maybe you could try answering it.
Or is actually providing information not in the fanatical GHE cultist playbook?
You neither agree, nor disagree? Just whine continuously about everything?
Keep it up – it’s good for laughs.
AQ: Are you saying that you agree with Ren (for this year at least) for California?
Perhaps you would care to cite anything I said which would suggest that I agree with him.
Do you agree that what he is saying for California and drought (or lack of) is indeed fact?
I have not said that I agree or disagree.
Now answer my question.
AQ,
You wrote –
“I have not said that I agree or disagree.”
Exactly so – you never really say anything, do you? Just continually whine and complain.
Go on, find a description of the GHE, and tell everyone that you agree with it. How hard can it be? Too hard for you, I surmise!
Go on, scuttle away like a cockroach, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anything and everything!
binny….”I dont need to be in Vancouver to see how cold it has been on Jan 12/13/14: all I have to do is to download the GHCN daily Vancouver station data newer than my last generation”.
***
This confirms your blatant ignorance. I outlined in an earlier post how much temperatures can vary in the Vancouver area over a few miles. You, like a typical bean-counter, rely on statistical analysis from fudged data, whereas I actually live here and have to endure the inordinate cold for a planet that is supposedly warming.
Even today, in early April, it’s too cold indoors to feel comfortable without some supplementary heat. Of course, people in other parts of the world who must suffer such conditions without supplementary heat would likely find I ‘doth protest too much’.
At sea level, where the temperatures are recorded at YVR, the thermometers are in a box, protected from the elements. I worked a night shift at the airport once when the temps were near zero. I could not warm, even though I had multiple layers of clothing and covered in waterproof gear. My job at the time was observing data points therefore the lack of activity produced cold that cut to the bone. Yet your data sheets would reveal a temperature that you think should be comfy.
YVR is located between two arms of the Fraser River, in the delta, where the river meets the ocean. The dampness in winter offers another level of misery for those outside. That flies in the face of the alarmist theory that WV produces warming. It might help in the Tropics but at the latitude of Vancouver in winter, it has the opposite effect.
I have done night shifts, outside, in the Alberta Tar Sands when it was -25C. I was able to dress against that cold, even when stationary, but there is something about damp air at 0C that sucks the heat right out of you, even when fully clothed in a similar manner.
In the Vancouver vicinity, we call the Lower Mainland, elevation can vary from 600 to 1000 feet above sea level. The temperature at one of those altitudes can be several degrees lower than at sea level but that is never recorded for GHCN. The local mountain are cold enough to produce volumes of snow when it is raining at sea level.
In essence, you can take GHCN and shove it. It has no meaning for those living locally.
Robertson
” This confirms your blatant ignorance. I outlined in an earlier post how much temperatures can vary in the Vancouver area over a few miles. You, like a typical bean-counter, rely on statistical analysis from fudged data, whereas I actually live here and have to endure the inordinate cold for a planet that is supposedly warming. ”
No data I present is fudged. You are no more than an incompetent, lying boaster.
And I repeat: your gut feeling matters to you way more than measured data. We all have to do with colder periods, but don’t misrepresent them to doubt any warming around us like you do all the time.
Robertson (cntnd)
I suddenly recall your utter nonsense about only UAH data being worth mentioned and used while all surface data isn’t.
But apparently, this is ‘by accident’ not true for your imagined Vancouver corner in which a little, one week long cold snap automatically supersedes years of warming:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HVI6cFMxkr6V838aPv5FVYbnhluNwE8M/view
It seems to (not only) me that for people like you, UAH is only good if it shown sufficiently away from the ‘fudged’ surface data.
Otherwise, the comparison is de facto ‘faked’.
That’s why I name you an arrogant ignoramus, able only to polemically discredit what you not able to technically contradict.
Never have you ever been an engineer, Robertson!
“It seems to (not only) me that for people like you, UAH is only good if it shown sufficiently away from the fudged surface data.”
Which is odd because the ‘ fudged ‘ surface data is all showing anomalies lower than UAH.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
I also live in Vancouver and you are very wrong. This was a super warm year, even the ski fields had to close for a month in the middle of winter. The snowpack is in the lowest 5% of records. Why make up a cold winter here when it’s so easy to dispute?
aq…”Accuweather, a site run by a denier, shows one noticeable cold snap in Vancouver that lasted for about a week in January”.
***
A cold snap in Vancouver is when temps are consistently below 0C for a few days to a couple of weeks. In January we approached a record cold day that neared the record set in 1968. Of course, one must take into account the change in altitude in the Vancouver area that can reach 600 feet in the adjacent city of Burnaby. In North and West Vancouver, across the Burrard Inlet, and on the flanks of 4000 foot mountains, altitude can vary even more.
For whatever reason, besides the cold snaps, which are produced by Arctic air descending from up-North, it was inordinately damp and cold from late October onward. We’ve had very mild winters where it barely snowed at all and I would expect in a warming climate to have more such winters. However, the opposite is happening.
Putting that in perspective, we live in the banana belt of Canada. Warmer ocean current and wind emanating in the Tropics keep our temperatures mild compared to the interior of Canada, just like the Gulf Stream warms Europe. However, when temperatures drop to 0C or below, it gets pretty miserable around here, mainly due to the damp air. But let’s not kid ourselves, it still feels cold in the Canadian Prairies at 0C, but damp air makes it feel different, especially when it’s overcast and there is no Sun to warm oneself.
When it drops to -15C, an otherwise mild day in some parts of Canada, it can prove seriously debilitating around here. That’s what is meant, in general, by a cold snap. We endure 0C every winter but that is not considered a cold nap.
“For whatever reason, besides the cold snaps, which are produced by Arctic air descending from up-North, it was inordinately damp and cold from late October onward.”
That is precisely what El Nino generally does to the North American western seaboard.
AQ,
Precisely – yet generally?
El Nino is just an apparent set of numbers. It “does” nothing.
Are you one of those fanatical GHE believers who can’t even describe the GHE?
You are a bit detached from reality, aren’t you?
EN generally produces flooding in our neck of the woods, around November, and flooding needs warmer weather.
Earlier, Willard wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Vintage 2019:
Mik.e Flynn says:
September 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM
Roy,
This was supposed to go elsewhere. I assume you have banned me, but I had already typed it up.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-388226
What are you braying about?”
What a strange person Willard is!
Posting the same bizarre comment, over and over, for no reason at all! Apart from Willard being an obsessive nutter, of course.
It takes all sorts, I suppose.
Mike Flynn,
Speaking of posting the same bizarre comment, over and over, for no reason at all:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
Do you still believe that the Earth lets energy “flow” freely to space?
Wee Willy Wanker.
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Speaking of posting the same bizarre comment, over and over, for no reason at all:
Mike Flynn says:
September 13, 2019 at 7:53 PM
[Puffman],
Spot on.
[Mike Flynn, you are free to believe in what you want. But my many posts on this subject have obviously been ignored by you. Start your own blog. -Roy]
The pseudoscientific GHE true believers deny that temperatures drop at night, or in winter
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
Do you still believe that the Earth lets energy “flow” freely to space?”
What do you mean by your silly gotcha “Do you still believe that the Earth lets energy “flow” freely to space?”?
Possibly you don’t realise that “the Earth” has no power over the amount of energy radiated by matter as a consequence of its temperature.
Or are you rejecting reality – claiming that the surface does not cool at night? Or maybe you refuse to believe that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and continues to do so?
Of course, your eminently bizarre description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” gives some indication of your degree of mental impairment. I am not surprised that you are obsessed with “Mike Flynn”, although if you claim he has been “banned”, I can’t really see what you are worried about. I am obviously still commenting, so I am obviously not “Mike Flynn” ie not “banned”. If this upsets you, maybe you should contact Dr Spencer and complain bitterly. You really don’t seem to have any other option, do you?
Some might describe you as incompetent, inept, and impotent, but not me! I wouldn’t be nearly that complimentary.
Off you go Willard – don some sackcloth and ashes, do your teeth-gnashing exercises, poke yourself in the eye with a hot needle! Good luck!
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“your eminently bizarre description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling””
Here it is:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Do you realize that you’re making the same comments as ten years ago, silly sock puppet?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Mike Flynn apparently wrote –
“Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me. Tell me, has the Earth warmed since its creation, because it has cooled really, really, slowly?”
I agree. Why you continuously appeal to the authority of Mike Flynn, when he points out that slow cooling does not result in an increase in temperature, is completely beyond me!
Mike Flynn apparently also wrote “I believe the Earth has cooled. I believe geophysicists agree with me. Have you any evidence to the contrary?”
Why do you quote him? Do you really agree that the Earth has cooled? You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”. No mention of heating, is there?
Are you a complete idiot, or trying to achieve that status?
Mike Flynn,
You still pretend not being Mike Flynn.
Yet you still post his same bizarre comments, over and over, for no reason at all:
Why is that?
Silly sock puppet!
Weird Wee Willy,
You claim (for no particular reason), that I am really someone else.
So why are you appealing to my authority, when I state categorically that the GHE does not exist? I wouldn’t be surprised if Mike Flynn has exactly the same view. How about you quote him saying that the GHE is non-existent?
Mike Flynn apparently posed the gotcha “Tell me, has the Earth warmed since its creation, because it has cooled really, really, slowly?”, which you claim is somehow the “description” of something which is not even mentioned by Mike Flynn!
Are you quite mad? Have you lost your grip on reality completely?
You don’t have to answer – that was a rhetorical pair of questions.
Go on, try and be offensive while I laugh at your pathetic efforts!
Mike Flynn,
For every single of your bizarre talking points, I can find similar examples either in this blog’s past or Judy’s.
You repeated them over and over, for no reason at all.
I thought you were against that.
Tsk tsk.
Cheers!
Weird Wee Willy,
You claim (for no particular reason), that I am really someone else.
So why are you appealing to my authority, when I state categorically that the GHE does not exist? I wouldnt be surprised if Mike Flynn has exactly the same view. How about you quote him saying that the GHE is non-existent?
Mike Flynn apparently posed the gotcha “Tell me, has the Earth warmed since its creation, because it has cooled really, really, slowly?”, which you claim is somehow the “description” of something which is not even mentioned by Mike Flynn!
Are you quite mad? Have you lost your grip on reality completely?
You dont have to answer that was a rhetorical pair of questions.
Go on, try and be offensive while I laugh at your pathetic efforts!
Mike Flynn,
Speaking of bizarre talking points you keep repeating, bedouins:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1660463
Silly sock puppet!
“Speaking of bizarre talking points you keep repeating, bedouins:”
Whose facts are you not disputing?
Just whining “silly sock puppet” wont help you, you know!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Why are you trying to deflect from the fact that you keep repeating the same weird talking points for more than a decade now?
Silly sock puppet.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Antarctic temperatures near the surface.
https://i.ibb.co/88316Nx/ventusky-temperature-5cm-20240405t0700.jpg
AYM00089606 ___VOSTOK_____________________ 2019 4 5 -74.5
AYM00089606 ___VOSTOK_____________________ 2013 4 5 -72.2
AYM00089606 ___VOSTOK_____________________ 2009 4 5 -71.1
AYM00089606 ___VOSTOK_____________________ 2006 4 5 -70.0
AYM00089606 ___VOSTOK_____________________ 2014 4 5 -69.0
It’s April now, and thus getting colder in the Antarctic; but it is a fact too that all 10 coldest April 5 happened during the last 25 years.
This blog’s Coolistas will be happy.
swannie…re the claim by Aksofu that we are re-warmig from the LIA at 0.5C/century…
***
I don’t rely on alarmists to backup their claims with references. It is easy enough to find Akasofu’s papers on that, unless one is in such deep denial, one is too afraid to look.
The evidence for the LIA is both proxy-based and anecdotal. If it was just one source claiming…”Cripey, it was cold in the late 1700s”, that would be one thing. However, there is a plethora of anecdotal evidence that something was afoot between 1300 and 1850.
Anecdotal evidence has revealed that the Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps increased its extent to the point it wiped out long established farms and villages in its path. The IPCC would have us accept their pseudo-science that such an extreme growth of a glacier during the LIA was a fluke common only to Europe.
Maybe you could explain how that could happen only in Europe and nowhere else in the world.
There is all sorts of anecdotal evidence much of it from explorers in the Arctic between 1600 and 1850, looking for the NW Passage. Other adventurers in North America noted starvation in the same era due to crop failure.
When brought to question, Gordo waffles away from an answer again.
To be sure, there is lots of evidence of cold periods, such as that of the 17th century, which may have been evidence of the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715 and the weaker the Dalton Minimum from about 1790 to 1830(?). And, it’s well known that the Year Without a Summer was the result of the Tambora eruption added to other big ones at about the same time . The problem is, where are such effects in 1850 and why would the temperature still be recovering after 1850?
“…where are such effects in 1850 and why would the temperature still be recovering after 1850?”
E. Swanson, research the growth of the ice cream industry. As ice cream production increased, so did global temperatures. There is direct correlation between the amount of ice cream being made, and rising temperatures. You can’t deny the hockey stick curve.
The science is settled because it is well known that ice can boil water….
(Sarc off)
And here is my usual LIA volcano eruption list, starting in 1257 with one of the heaviest ones since about 10,000 years:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bh7NjyY970aHBuPn0xD2XP9cdogzvn2E/view
The comparison between Samalas and Tambora is interesting:
https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.1307520110/asset/4124ff30-3cbb-426e-84d4-35874b24c454/assets/graphic/pnas.1307520110fig03.jpeg
And between all these VEI 7-6-5 individuals, over 30 eruptions with VEI 3-4.
*
Ignoramuses a la Robertson ‘think’ (!!!) that the effect of such eruptions vanishes after 2 years or so… plus ignorant que lui, tu meurs.
Maunder and Dalton were peaks of low temperatures.
According to your figures, the Maunder lasted for 70 years and Dalton 40 years. Show me evidence of any volcanic activity that has persisted more than a few years. Krakatoa was arguably the worst volcanic explosion in that era, coming in 1883, and there is no indication that it caused long-term cooling like the Maunder and Dalton minima.
it’s true that the LIA had two major peaks but something drove the Vikings out of southern Greenland, after they had enjoyed sufficient warming in the Medieval Warm Period to farm in Greenland. It got so cold they did not fare well on the Mainland, nor did aboriginals as far south as modern day Texas and Florida.
Theory goes that the Vikings inhabited Greenland from about 950 AD to 1450 AD. To see what they face with cooling temperatures, there was a famine in the Scottish Highland circa 1790, at the peak of the Dalton minimum. There is also evidence of famine in North America during th LIA and that would have been after 1600 AD.
My point has been that the IPCC has stifled such information, as claimed by Akasofu, who claimed they erred by not taking into account the cooling caused by the LIA.
binny…why have volcanic eruptions not caused major cooling issues in the modern era? The most recent warmed the climate.
Robertson
” binny… why have volcanic eruptions not caused major cooling issues in the modern era? ”
Can’t you read the eruption list above?
When did we see ‘in the modern era’ such an incredible sequence of VEI 5/6/7 eruptions?
Tambora (1815) was the heaviest one in the last 3 centuries, but it was a single event, and according to ice core evaluations far weaker than Samalas (1257).
*
” The most recent warmed the climate. ”
How many underwater eruptions did we have in the last 5,000 years, compared to the ones at land surface?
Look for the number, instead of guessing.
Gordo re-writes history, claiming that the Dalton Minimum “peaked” in 1790, when that was just the beginning of a relatively weak period for Sunspots, not a near absence, as during the Maunder Minimum. He also ignores the effects of several volcanoes, most particularly, Tambora, which contributed to cooler conditions.
His further comments regarding the Greenland Norse ignores decades of effort to determine what happened to them. We know that there were two main settlements, the main one to the south and one on the western side of Greenland. The Western Settlement vanished some time before the Eastern one, which may have been related to the 1258 volcanic event, which had a large sulfate spike found in the ice core record. The later 1452-54 eruption had an even larger spike.
We know that the Norse farming practices were similar to those of Iceland and Norway, focused on animals as well as crops for food. Pollen studies have revealed that over time, those practices changed in ways which indicated a reduction in trees. One can see this in photos even today, as there are almost no trees in the area of the Eastern Settlement. Given the harsh winters, without trees for fuel, what would one expect to happen? there’s also the problem of the Plague, which arrived in Iceland around 1402-04, killing perhaps 1/2 the population.
Here’s two recent news article:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/24/world/why-vikings-left-greenland-scn/index.html
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-did-the-vikings-abandon-their-most-successful-settlement-in-greenland-180979884/
Thanks for the list Bindidon. Those large eruptions surely had an impact, which, added to the effects of the Maunder Minimum, could have produced the unusual cold.
While looking at the recent Wikipedia posts, I found that my previous understanding of the events around 1454 was likely incorrect. I had read Dr Kevin Pang’s compilation of the large eruption back then, which he claimed to be from a single event. It appears now that there may have been 2 separate events:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1452/1453_mystery_eruption
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1458_mystery_eruption
One point to remember is that the longer term effects over several years are the result of SO2 being lofted into the stratosphere. That depends on the intensity of the eruption and the relative abundance if SO2 in the magma. HERE’s a report from 2008 which provides much detail of the understanding at that time. I only read the first few sections, down to about Figure 2, which shows the dramatic spike in the ice cores dated at 1259.
Thanks in turn for the 2008 paper – I didn’t see anywhere until now.
And I see of course that the list I compiled lacks the 1458 eruption.
*
The Samalas vs. Tambora comparison I found in
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1307520110
*
And what people a la Robertson always polemically discredit – of course without being in the least able to technically contradicting it:
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks
Gifford H. Miller & al. (2012)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168
Binny,
From your link –
“We completed a 550-year transient experiment (11501700 AD) using Community Climate System Model 3”.
No, that’s not an experiment. That’s an exercise in wishful thinking, based on a programs written by people who believe in a mythical GHE.
Playing computer games might be fun, but it does not replace the scientific method.
Keep dreaming.
As always, Flynnson is tr0lling the discussion away, by superficially discrediting an article on the base of a single paragraph.
People like Flynnson distillate doubt everywhere, instead of trying to contribute.
How ridiculous!
Binny,
You wrote –
“As always, Flynnson is tr0lling the discussion away, by superficially discrediting an article on the base of a single paragraph.”
Go on, tell me that you are silly enough to believe the rest of the article contains no errors!
One error is enough, don’t you think?
How many do you think I should point out for your benefit? Maybe you should actually read your references. Posting links which contain obvious errors, and hoping nobody will notice, just makes you look silly.
Carry on.
Bindi, I periodically check in on the USGS earthquake site for the latest events. They list even small quakes for the US, but only larger ones for other areas. The fun thing is that one can often zoom in to high resolution for some locations. Try that with this satellite picture of Samalas and Tambora, One can also switch to a map or terrain displays, for finding cities, etc, and there are side bars with options which can be selected using the icons in the upper RH side of the screen. Hope this works.
“I don’t rely on alarmists to backup their claims with references.”
The irony is a howler.
“The irony is a howler.”
barry, please stop trolling.
Temperatures in Maine will now drop below 0 C.
https://i.ibb.co/7gK1VsD/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-04-05-115734.png
While most of Europe anticipates a warm weekend, Northern Europe faces unusual cold, with temperatures up to 20 C below the early April average, dropping to -30 C this morning. See temperature anomaly map.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=65.2;34.3;4&l=temperature-anomaly-2m&t=20240405/03&src=link
A year ago I made a post the sun would go more or less sideways for the next two years , It’s one year later, How am I doing so far ?
https://tinyurl.com/ycx739pa
“Sideways?”
Hard to judge on such a vague term. Link to your post and we’ll be able to judge.
“Link to your post and well be able to judge.” We?
barry, please stop trolling.
Yes, we, Eben didn’t name anyone for his request.
Stop being a tr0ll.
You replied this to it but now you don’t remember dumbass ?
It will go sideways more or less for the next two years
Suprised Eben is in the guessing (er prediction) business at all, given his lack of expertise on this subject..
But well take note of it.
> now you dont remember
Hard to recall something unidentified, Eboy.
Just keep scrolling Willtard
You posted something a year ago and you think I should remember what it is?
Wanker.
So you don’t want to clarify what you mean.
Wanker.
His post was when the counts were lower, as I recall.
barry, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner is not a Number 1 guy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner is more of a Number Two guy.
Depends what nature requires. If you need a number one, then you’ve gotta go number one. Makes no sense to try to do a number two if number one is what’s calling.
An unusually cold April low-pressure system moved across the Bay Area on Thursday, dropping snow down to 1,500 feet and hail to the coast and valleys. On Friday, the storm will continue to move south, popping thunderstorms up between San Jose and San Diego, with accumulating snow as low as 3,000 feet.
High temperatures will be as much as 20 degrees below normal in Southern California, in the 50s at the coast and 30s in the mountains. In the Bay Area, Friday will be slightly warmer than Thursday, but highs will still be 5 to 15 degrees below normal. Lows will drop to the 30s to lower 40s in the valleys and 20s in the mountains Friday night.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/weather-forecast/article/california-snow-thunderstorms-19385973.php
https://i.ibb.co/nzDpmhP/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f024.png
No one doubts that the current solar cycle SC 25 is ‘going sideways’.
But… why looking at SC 25 only?
According to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles
Sc 23 started in August 1996, SC 24 in December 2008, and SC 25 in December 2019.
A comparison of these three solar cycles by superposing them from their respective starting month and ending at month 51 (March 2024 for SC 25), gives this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U-bwWcbOYe8ZNbL683kZHk1bhsWISxlj/view
“A comparison of these three solar cycles by superposing them from their respective starting month and ending at month 51 (March 2024 for SC 25), gives this:”
So on graph red line is 25 and 24 is blue line. {and green is 23}.
I guessing red line won’t cross green line {ever}. And red line could cross blue, soon. In regards to the heavier lines {average} and thinner lines [daily].
Anyone else making any guesses?
Oh, “Soon” is less than 3 months.
” I guessing red line wont cross green line {ever}. ”
100% OK.
*
” And red line could cross blue, soon. ”
I can’t agree because I think that SC 25 could possibly behave similarly to its two predecessors:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5UEqEHMt7Qegj0r8A1gf0NBtZzw8wJ4/view
As you can see, SC 24 and SC 23 have two pikes, each around month 65 i.e. in… 14 months.
*
” In regards to the heavier lines {average} and thinner lines [daily]. ”
No. The graphs above are based on monthly data.
Here is the daily stuff:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CQoF9NsU9LaT4V9xWBxkO5HM8K6KjTtN/view
“I cant agree because I think that SC 25 could possibly behave similarly to its two predecessors:”
You think there will be something like a double peak. And maybe also second peak which is bigger.
Which still allows, maybe, that we are in a solar grand min.
I guessing it’s more dramatic, and it will, definitely, mean we in solar grand min.
It would be a favored situation, I would like to find out, quicker, whether it’s a grand min or not.
Or I am biased.
–No. The graphs above are based on monthly data.
Here is the daily stuff:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CQoF9NsU9LaT4V9xWBxkO5HM8K6KjTtN/view–
Whatever you want to call it. In 3 months both fat and thin line will cross, is my guess.
Or thin red line, has crossed. And going to do it again, but fat line will also.
gbaikie
Who – apart from Zharkova – is ‘predicting’ any Grand Solar Minimum?
Who?
–Bindidon says:
April 6, 2024 at 3:43 AM
gbaikie
Who apart from Zharkova is predicting any Grand Solar Minimum?
Who?–
Let’s do what. What is grand solar maximum? And what is grand solar minimum.
Do we agree that in 20th century there was a solar grand maximum. And there wasn’t a solar grand min.
And that before 20th century there were solar grand minimums?
If you agree there was a solar grand maximum in 20th century, it began at some point and will end at some point.
It seems at this point in time that one could agree that perhaps the solar grand maximum has ended and at the moment one could say we neither in a solar grand max, nor solar grand min. And it possible in next several decade we could continue in neither a solar grand max nor solar grand min. Or we can return a solar grand max, or solar grand min.
We can’t have started a solar grand maximum already, and we could have started solar grand maximum. Cycle 23 was a weak cycle but it could be weak cycle within solar grand max, but followed by Cycle 24 which was weaker, and followed by cycle 25, which might be around a 23 or 24, is long enough pause to allow one to say the 20th century solar grand max has ended.
If cycle 26 is as strong as any cycle in the 20th century, it might mark the beginning of new solar grand max, but it will require a few more cycles before one could say. But you could say in ended a very short solar grand min.
“Who apart from Zharkova is predicting any Grand Solar Minimum?”
I thought I would google it:
The Approaching New Grand Solar Minimum and Little Ice Age Climate Conditions
Nils-Axel Mrner
Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, Sweden.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=61284
“1. Introduction
The solar activity exhibits a fairly regular alternation between solar maxima and solar minima (e.g. [1] [2] ). The grand solar minima known as the Sprer Minimum (ca 1440-1460), the Maunder Minimum (ca 1687-1703) and the Dalton Minimum (ca 1809-1821) are all well known, not least because they correspond quite well with cold periods known as Little Ice Ages”
And:
–2. The Claim of Priority
With respect to all the authors having claimed that we are approaching a solar minimum and/or a new Little Ice Age [1] [2] [5] -[31] , there is hard, even meaningless, to try to identify a paper of priority (maybe [8] ). Apparently, several authors had the same idea based on a verity of different data; heliomagnetic cyclicity, atmospheric production of radionuclides, planetary beat, history and cyclicity of various terrestrial variables.
What we can say, however, is that paper [25] by no means is a candidate for such a priority although this was claimed by media and some blogs [40] . There are many pioneer papers before that paper.”
And “[25]” is:
Shepherd, S.I., Zharkov, S.I. and Zharkova, V.V. (2014) Prediction of Solar Activity from Solar Background Magnetic Field Variations in Cycles 21-23. Astrophysics Journal, 795, 46.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/46
So, it doesn’t credit Zharkova, in terms of “Claim of Priority”.
But in terms of precise, I imagine, Zharkova, could or does have a claim to Claim of Priority.
Mainly because what she is saying is specific enough to be disproved.
And as far as I know, it hasn’t happened, …yet.
Bindiclown doesn’t know why some cycles have double peaks, all he does he hopes for one. he will find out in time
As usual from the ankle-biting dachshund: no arguments, no contradiction, no data: only superficial, discrediting, barking blah blah.
How boring!
Translation. Binny cannot answer Eben’s point so he resorts to ad homs and insults.
That’s boring, but it represents the entire alarmist/spinner approach to science.
There’s no point just denigration by assumption.
“Theres no point just denigration by assumption.”
barry, please stop trolling.
“As usual from the ankle-biting dachshund: no arguments, no contradiction, no data: only superficial, discrediting, barking blah blah.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
words of wisdom from Mike Flynn, who has not posted here for years…
As posted by wee willy…”Reduce the rate at which a hot teapot loses heat by putting a tea cosy on the pot. The temperature does not rise.
Reduce the rate at which the Earth loses heat by surrounding it with an insulating layer of gas. The temperature does not rise”.
***
The point Mike was making is to the point, insulation dos not produce heat. It has no ability to produce heat, only to reduce the rate at which a heated body cools.
We now know, thanks to Shula and the Pirani gauge, that radiation is not an effective means of cooling a surface. Shula explained it as the number of heat-scavenging molecules of air far out-numbering the equivalent number of photons emitted by the surface.
That makes sense in a way. Surface atoms rid themselves of heat by radiating it away via electron transitions. There are only so many electrons involved at any one time whereas all air molecules touching the surface (10^27/m^2) can extract heat. It is the fact that cooling radiation is far slower at dissipating heat than the heating effect of solar energy, that an energy imbalance is created. That is the same for all planets, including the Moon.
The so-called GHE is produced, in part, by the inability of radiation to rid the planet of heat as fast as it is put into the system via solar energy. I think the fact that conduction/convection can dissipate heat within the system plays a major part.
> who has not posted here for years
Mr. Asshat’s lies are shining through:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1399111
“Somewhat” is an interesting way to put it. He denies the greenhouse effect. Silly sock puppet!
That would be Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Asshat to you.
When you’ll stop lying you’ll be able to make this kind of requests, Mr. Asshat.
That’s not a request, it’s an order, guttersnipe.
“He denies the greenhouse effect. Silly sock puppet!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
I suppose you never really recycle your talking points:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/new-article-on-climate-models-vs-observations/#comment-1606461
Silly sock puppet!
Silly Billy Willy,
You quote –
“I suppose you have read the paper showing that the heavy dark woollen robes worn by Bedouins keep them cooler than light clothing?”
Why is that? Do you disagree?
No, you wouldn’t have the backbone to disagree with anything, would you?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
Why is that?
Hard to tell why you keep repeating the same irrelevant talking points.
Because you can?
That would put your value on par with a Mason jar.
Silly sock puppet!
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard appeals to my authority again. What a perspicacious fellow! He wrote –
“Swenson says:
November 21, 2022 at 7:38 PM
I disagree somewhat with Dr Spencer, but for different reasons.
Thermal conductivity may be irrelevant silver is exceptionally conductive, but a highly polished silver teapot will keep your tea hotter than one made of pottery which will be far less conductive.
Colour may be unimportant the study, called Why Do Bedouins Wear Black Robes in Hot Deserts?, was published in the journal Nature in 1980.”
I obviously agree, don’t I – seeing as how I wrote it! Even Willard agrees – and quotes me, because he cannot find to disagree about! Once again, perspicacious fellow! Obviously, he also disagrees with Dr Spencer, but is too gutless to say so. No problem, Willard. Keep quoting me, and appealing to my authority. You obviously rate my opinions highly.
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn,
You keep using the expression “appeal to authority”:
It might not mean what you make it mean.
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Thanks for quoting Mike Flynn. You wrote –
“Mike Flynn says:
“Why do Bedouins wear black robes in hot deserts?” from Nature, indicates the nature (pardon the pun) of Davids attempt to bend nature (another pun) to his will.”
I believe that he referred to an article in a prestigious scientific journal, with which you disagree, although you decline to say why.
Maybe you should read the article, and explain why it doesnt mean what you think it means.
Or just accept the reality that the GHE doesn’t exist. Nobody can even describe the mythical phenomenon! Your witless attempt at a description – “not cooling, slower cooling” is ridiculously laughable!
Carry on demonstrating your obvious mental impairment.
[laughing at dim GHE believer]
Mike Flynn,
Why do you keep denying being Mike Flynn out of a sudden –
Because even you cannot deny the overwhelming evidence anymore?
Silly sock puppet.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You burbled –
“Why do you keep denying being Mike Flynn out of a sudden ”
Learn English and accept reality if you feel like a change.
Or just keep grinding your teeth because you can’t force me to use a pseudonym of your choosing! That shows that you are both incompetent and impotent, doesn’t it?
Does that make you a laughing stock, or just a pathetic object of derision?
You tell me!
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“you cant force me to use a pseudonym of your choosing!”
What are you braying about?
You are free to keep using your most recent sock puppet, and I am free to laugh at your immature posturing!
Cheers.
“What are you braying about?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
ent…”Which is odd because the fudged surface data is all showing anomalies lower than UAH”.
***
The meaning is clear, the fudgers have painted themselves into a corner from which they cannot extract themselves.
I trust Roy and John from UAH. I cannot trust NOAA or GISS after the chicanery they have offered over the years. Both claimed 2014 as the hottest year ever with NOAA using a 48% likelihood they were telling the truth and GISS only a 38% likelihood. Why would any reputable agency report temperatures based o a probability it is true?
The head of GISS, Gavin Schmidt, runs an uber-alarmist site, realclimate with his buddy Michael Mann. When Climategate revealed chicanery involving Mann, Schmidt defended him. He did not have to say anything but he posted on realcimate, defending Mann’s ‘trick’, that essentially hid declining temperatures in MBH (hockey stick).
When the IPCC announced in 2013, that there had been no warming for 15 years from 1998 til 2012, NOAA retroactively changed the SST to show a warming.
Why would anyone trust NOAA or GISS. And if you don’t trust UAH why are you posting here?
“Both claimed 2014 as the hottest year ever with NOAA using a 48% likelihood they were telling the truth and GISS only a 38% likelihood. Why would any reputable agency report temperatures based o a probability it is true?”
When UAH reported that 2016 was the warmest year on record, they didn’t bother to include the fact that this was a probabilistic result. NOAA and GISS at least reported the odds.
All the yearly averages have error bars. 2014, at the time, was the highest ranked anomaly for GISS and NOAA, and they added the probability of it being the warmest in the press release. 2014 had better odds than any other year of being the warmest – twice as likely as the next warmest year.
I wonder why UAH didn’t report that 2016 had a 49% chance of being the warmest year, and just reported its ranking?
binny…”Thats why I name you [GR] an arrogant ignoramus, able only to polemically discredit what you not able to technically contradict.
***
Here we have a Frenchman, exiled to Germany, telling someone who lives in a location, experiencing the cold, that he is not feeling that cold, based on Binny’s analysis of fudged data.
Christos recently reported how cold it was in Greece, near the Mediterranean. I suppose you will call him a liar too, based on your cretinous analysis of fudged data?
The same Binny who, in a huff, announced he was leaving the blog, then showed up a few days later using his girlfriends nym.
Yeah, he is definitely the biggest creep here since david apell got kicked out
Again again and again, Robertson lies and lies and lies.
And of course: the dachshund is happy to bark in: he LOVES insulting others!
“Again again and again, Robertson lies and lies and lies.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Thermometers cannot measure the outdoors air temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We had Pliny the Elder, now we have Binny the Dumber.
binny reveals his parochial views on life…
“Palmowski
Have you ever been to the USA?
Everywhere from the East Coast to the West Coast power lines look like they did in Germany in the late 1950s.
So its no wonder that every really bad snowstorm slashes them down”.
***
The rest of us call Ren by his nickname, Ren, but Binny, for whatever reason, has to treat hims rudely, referring to him by his last name. Ren never bothers anyone and goes about his buisness, yet Binny the Dumber has to insult him out of principle.
Once again, Binny has insight to the entire North American power grid from afar, in the country to which he has been exiled in Europe. He likely visited the US on a two weeks vacation and became an expert on power grids. More likely, he has never even been to the US.
Our power lines in Canada are closer to the modern US power lines, not the antiquated power line of 1950s Germany, a country recovering from a brutal war from which they were trying desperately to recover in that era. In rural areas, that may be the case, but the average US power grid is modern and sophisticated.
In certain parts of the country, suffering from ice storms, where the ice accumulates on power lines, the odd power line might fall. You won’t find that anywhere around the Vancouver area on the West Coast or further down the US through Washington, Portland and California. Also, ice accumulation on outdoor transformers can cause them to blow.
Ice storms generally happen from the US Midwest eastward, and up into the eastern provinces of Canada. They are likely due to frigid Arctic air interacting with warmer air from the South. Also, rain needs to be produced in frigid temperatures and that requires warmer air mingling with frigid air.
And Robertson the dumbie blathers and blathers and blathers.
Everybody on Earth is perfectly aware of the fact that an incredible amount of the societal US infrastructure (telephone, current, train network, etc) is deprecated.
But Robertson, as usual, invents what best fits his narrative, regardless what he writes about (Einstein, lunar spin, time, GPS etc etc etc).
“And Robertson the dumbie blathers and blathers and blathers.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Let’s talk telephone systems. In the 1980’s, telecom companies in the US and Canada began moving way from relay-based Strowger switching systems. The Strowger system had a relay driven switch that could rotate and move vertically. That meant it could select 1 of 99 switch positions.
By the 1990s, the mechanical systems had given way to electronic switching systems, (ESS), that has no moving parts. It used a semiconductor matrix to do what the 10 x 10 relay switching system did. Since then, speeds and reliability have increased due to the introduction of fibre optic systems.
Recently, we had our TV cable box replaced and it is totally wifi operated. No cable required in homes, the signals are sent out from a central switch via wifi. The system is voice operated. Today, North America is state-of-the art
With regard to current, what are you blethering about? You are one of those homers who sits at home and theorizes about other countries. Our power systems are also state-of-the-art.
You dare to compare a dangerous European system based on a 240 volt residential system with a far safer 120 volt system usd i North America. We are light years ahead of Europe wrt electrical safety.
Trains??? Who takes trains anymore? Why would you sit on a train for 3000 miles across Canada or the US when you could get there in 5 hours by plane?.
It is unbelievable that you could become even more of an ijit than you have been.
For those who missed Hansen’s latest published rant, he claims that he, and he alone, knows what is good for society. The models are wrong, the IPCC is wrong, and everyone else is wrong except him. He specifically calls out Michael Mann as being not radical enough, because he knows that “Mike” will not take it personally. He then goes on to blame Bill Clinton for killing nuclear power which he endorses as the only way to save humanity from the evil fossil fuel industry and their enablers, or something to that effect. It is all very amusing, but sad because some people will probably buy what he is selling.
> he claims that he, and he alone, knows what is good for society
[NARRATOR] No, he doesn’t.
Is that the same James Hansen who wrote on X “The United Nations and COP28 are lying.”?
That’s a lot of liars! Does he sell tinfoil hats?
People like Willard probably believe everything he says.
Did he, Mike Flynn, and would it prove what TS just said?
Adults use a concept called hyperbole to exaggerate when emphasis is required. You should look that up.
Contrarians use “But CAGW” as the central square of the Climateball Bingo:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
Adults know that Jim has been a life-long Republican.
“Did he, Mike Flynn, and would it prove what TS just said?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
When Hansen predicted scenarios in 1988, which were catastrophic, and they failed to materialize 10 years later, he blamed his computer for the error. Jim is never wrong.
I think it was Greta Thunberg who had predicted the end of the world by 2023. You have to wonder what drives these nitwits.
Being anti-nuclear is one of the many reasons that warmistas are impossible to take seriously.
Not double checking if their favorite Mike is anti-nuclear (he is not) is one of the reason why contrarians are an infinite source of derision.
Nicholas McGinley
1. How many nuclear plants would have been built if the companies responsible for them would have to pay total insurance for what happens to their plants upon a tsunami like in Fukushima?
2. How many decommissioned nuclear plants have been completely dismantled worldwide, and the nuclear waste they produced during their lifetime (together with that from dismantling) was finally processed for subsequent VLTS (Very Long Time Securization)?
3. Why are nearly everywhere on Earth all used fuel rods still stored in cooling basins, instead of being subject to final waste processing?
4. Is it known to you that while ‘traditional’ nuclear fuel rods can be subject to final waste processing after a delay of 6-8 years, rods containing MOX (mixed oxydes, i.e. with about 8% Pu239) must be cooled during about 60 (sixty) years)?
5. Do you too believe in the brazen fiction that 4th generation plants will ‘consume’ all the waste produced by the plants currently in use?
6. Do you know anything about the French 4th generation plant Superphenix, which had to be abandoned due to permanent leakage problems in its primary cooling system, based on 5,500 tons of liquid sodium?
*
Every Coolista can name me a Warmista – no problem form me.
But… I don’t want to live with my ‘Eyes Wide Shut’.
I will paraphrase a famous quote: The only thing you have to fear from nuclear power is fear itself. If just half the money spent on researching climate change was spent on breeder reactor development, we would already have it in use. People who fear radiation should not spend any time in a basement that is not well ventilated for Radon gas, and not spend too much time inside concrete structures.
There are two basic problems. One is the need for standardized designs that are really expensive to design once, and then reasonably cost effective to build. The other problem is that breeder reactors produce weapons grade isotopes.
I will simply quote myself:
> Going nuclear means regulating the energy market for a long time.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/going-nuclear/
Freedom Fighters who pretend nukes are the solution are 25 years too late.
“I will simply quote myself:” says pretentious Willard.
I will simply have a good laugh at Wee Willy Wanker, who lives in a fantasy world where he is wise, powerful and respected. Others might think differently of Willard.
Recent headline –
“Michigan nuclear plant aims to be first ever to reopen in US.”
Somebody, somewhere, seems to think spending $1.5 billion of taxpayers money is worthwhile.
Money talks, bullshit walks?
On the other, the Solyndra solar power loss of half a billion of taxpayer dollars has gone largely unnoticed, so three times that loss on nuclear should be fine.
/sarc
Who needs electricity anyway? Its production and use just ends up as waste heat, resulting in measurable anthropogenic global warming, and everybody knows how dangerous that is!
/sarc off
The future is unknowable.
Mike Flynn,
Don’t be shy, quote properly –
https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/03/1090603/how-to-reopen-a-nuclear-power-plant
800 MW may help, but it won’t solve climate change.
There is no silver bullet.
Witless Wee Willy,
You seem to have become upset by me writing –
Recent headline
“Michigan nuclear plant aims to be first ever to reopen in US.”
Somebody, somewhere, seems to think spending $1.5 billion of taxpayers money is worthwhile.
Money talks, bullshit walks?
On the other, the Solyndra solar power loss of half a billion of taxpayer dollars has gone largely unnoticed, so three times that loss on nuclear should be fine.
/sarc
Who needs electricity anyway? Its production and use just ends up as waste heat, resulting in measurable anthropogenic global warming, and everybody knows how dangerous that is!
/sarc off
The future is unknowable.
You wrote “800 MW may help, but it wont solve climate change.”
Are you completely brainless? Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, and even a fanatical GHE cultists like you cannot deny that weather (and hence climate) never repeats – constantly changing.
Solve climate change? About as delusional as the dummies who wave placards saying “Stop Climate Change”! What a pack of reality denying nutters!
Carry on rejecting reality.
Mike Flynn,
Changing economic conditions have made continued operation too expensive to justify for many nuclear power plants, especially smaller ones. Those with a single, relatively small reactor, like Palisades, have been the most vulnerable.
What are you braying about?
binny…”I dont want to live with my Eyes Wide Shut”.
***
Unfortunately, you are far too late.
Re the Japanese nuclear meltdown, what kind of ijits would build a nuclear plant next to an ocean?
The problem with nuclear waste is that we have not been around nuclear plants long enough to find a good way to dispose of them. The way we are wasting a gross amount of time pursuing pseudo-science, we’ll never get the chance to develop clean power.
We have wasted nearly a century with nonsense science like Einstein’s relativity and an ijiotic focus on a trace gas. We are still entertaining nonsense like the Big Bang theory, black holes, and evolution theory. Rather than developing instrument to help us visualize atomic level processes, we rely on quantum theory, which has become a serious joke.
People these days cannot understand a simple theory like the 2nd law of thermodynamics because ijits over the decades have perverted the meaning given to it by Clausius on the 1850s. The meaning should be intuitively clear to any one who has experienced heat. But then we have other ijit claiming heat does not exist as energy but is only a measure of energy transfer.
Our governments and educational systems are out of control, and like Nero, we fiddle while Rome burns. Then we have ijits like Binny trying to prop up ridiculous theories.
“What are you braying about?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
There is a difference between the design of Fukishima and US built reactors of the same era.
The diesel generators at the plant I worked at were surrounded by concrete walls three feet thick, not so at Fukishima.
The tsunami would not have taken out the diesel generators if they were properly protected, such that a total loss of off-site power accident would not cause the problems that it did. Namely that the fuel cladding caught on fire and the rest of the mess.
The probability of a double solar maximum is low because a complete polarization swap has already occurred.
https://i.ibb.co/Js7td04/Tilts.gif
Where is a valuable source for your allegation? Your picture of course isn’t.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Where is a valuable source for your allegation?”.
Why do you want to know? If you have contradictory facts, just produce them.
Bindidork reveals I was right about how clueless he is, doesn’t even take a hint from Ren
Robertson the arrogant ignoramus wrote his Einstein discrediting trash for the umpteenth time:
” There is no doubt in my mind that Newton was a superior scientist to Einstein who dabbled mainly in thought experiments. Newtonian physics still prevails today even though Einstein groupies have anointed their authority figure as the new Newton. The truth is, we need Newtonian physics whereas Einsteinian physics has no real application. Einstein himself admitted as much. ”
*
Using Newton’s formulae, it is impossible to obtain a correct value for the precession of Mercury’s perihelion.
There exists indeed a non-relativistic correction, but it works only for mercury and doesn’t for Venus’ and Earth’s perihelion; Einstein’s formulae give in all cases the correct value.
*
GPS doesn’t work without accounting for general and special relativity.
Only dumb contrarians try to tell it doesn’t need it, e.g.
https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/top-4-reasons-why-gps-doesnt-need-einstein-s-relativity-895cabc6e619
Another example of contrarianism:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gps-systems-living-proof-time-dilation-phenomenon-dieu-le
*
Time dilation has been proven first in 1938 by the Yves-Stilwell experiment, and with much higher accuracy by several later experiments.
*
Poster gallopingcamel tried long time ago to explain to Robertson that when designing a synchrotron, you have to calculate the bending applied by magnets to electron streams and would utterly fail when using Newton’s formulae instead of Einstein’s:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2018-0-19-deg-c/#comment-320235
*
Robertson not only deliberately ignores all contradictions to his nonsense; he even resorts back to them by restarting his nonsense from scratch.
So what!
Bindi, Gordon has his issues as we know. But, that does not excuse YOUR issues.
You keep clinging to nonsense, while ignoring the basics.
For example, if you have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”, then you’ve got NOTHING.
First bait for the month, Puffman.
Silly willy, your childish comment is late. I expect no more that 5 minutes from you keyboard kids.
Get your mom to help you.
Puffman,
Here was you last month:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1639747
Also on the sixth.
You still haven’t done the Pole Dance Experiment, huh?
“First bait for the month, Puffman.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Much better, silly willy. Right on time.
Your mom helped, obviously.
“Here was you last month:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Robertson the arrogant ignoramus wrote his Einstein discrediting trash for the umpteenth time:”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
“You still havent done the Pole Dance Experiment, huh?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny…”Using Newtons formulae, it is impossible to obtain a correct value for the precession of Mercurys perihelion.
There exists indeed a non-relativistic correction, but it works only for mercury and doesnt for Venus and Earths perihelion; Einsteins formulae give in all cases the correct value”.
***
Any mathematician or physicist, with a lick of sense, could work out the Mercury problem using Newtonian relativity theory. The precession is an issue because it varies slightly as the orbit of Mercury rotates.
What you have here is nothing more than basic relative motion. Einstein’s theory, by his own admission, is that same theory altered to allow time to change dimension. That is the laughing point of the theory since time has no existence.
Einstein’s relativity theory was stolen from Lorentz, however, he failed to note that the Lorentz theory about time dilating was a faux pas derived to make the Lorentz theory work. In fact, the Einstein theory of relativity is a scam based on a thought experiment gone wrong.
—
“GPS doesnt work without accounting for general and special relativity”.
Only dumb contrarians try to tell it doesnt need it, e.g.
***
Actually, the the alleged contrarian offers the excellent point that clocks running at considerable altitude are affected by a reduced gravity and air density. They only run in the order of a billionth of a second differently. Both articles reveal that design engineers do not use relativity in the design of GPS units, therefore such a change in clock operation related to gravity has nothing to do with relativity..
Based on my own experience, I know of no electronics components or equipment that can deal with time dilation. What timebase would be used as a reference point? You can set up a computer or a digital unit to measure pulses and add them to equal a second, but that second is derived from the Earth’s rotational period, not from a mysterious source called time.
There is nothing in a GPS unit that relies on Einsteinian relativity.
—
“Posterr gallopingcamel tried long time ago to explain to Robertson that when designing a synchrotron, you have to calculate the bending applied by magnets to electron streams and would utterly fail when using Newtons formulae instead of Einsteins:”
***
Binny cherry-picks Cam’s reply. Anyone interested should read on at the said link.
Cam was a good guy and a skeptic. Here’s what he said…
“While building the Duke FEL (Free Electron Laser) in 1995 we used 40 bending magnets to create a closed orbit for 1 GeV electrons. If we believed Newtons F = ma the magnets would have been set at 5 Gauss.
In order for our synchrotron to work the magnets were set to 10,000 Gauss as predicted by Einsteins General Theory of Relativity. How does one explain the need for magnets to be 2,000 times more powerful than Newtonian mechanics predicted?”
***
For one, no one would use f = ma with an electron mass. However, my reply to Cam asked him if his experiment could possibly have reached an incorrect conclusion, where something else was acting to give the appearance of time dilation. I am not talking about something esoteric or unknwon. Eitein made the mistake of thinking ti is a real phenomenon. I think it is likely in Cam’s experiment that they mistook what they measured as fitting Einstein’s theory.
He did nor reply to that directly and I will address what he said in another post. Clint tends to get frantic when I use too much of Roy’s blog space.
Here’s a later reply from Cam…
“Einsteins GTR is really weird but it is simple compared to the QED (Quantum Electro-Dynamics) and the QFT (Quantum Field Theory) that apply at atomic scales. Let me have another crack at this.
Imagine that the electron in orbit inside a circular synchrotron tube is a spaceship and you are a passenger on that spaceship. Lets assume you weigh 100 kgaccording to the people in the laboratory your mass is 200 tonnes.
Meanwhile inside the spaceship everything is normal. Your weight still appears to be 100 kg so you can walk around as exactly as you could when the spaceship was at rest. Newtons F = ma appears to work in the spaceship reference frame.
Back in the laboratory we can see you moving around without any problems except you are moving 2,000 times slower than we expect. Thus time has slowed down by a factor of 2,000 so that F = ma also seems to work in the laboratory reference frame”.
***
This is not a shot at Cam, I liked him and he was a good representative for skepticism. As I recall, he got his nym ‘gallopingcamel’ from his rugby days when team mates reckoned he ran like a galloping camel. However, his reply above is an example of modern physics where some of it s based on equations and indirect science like quantum theory. It cannot be confirmed by experiment and any eperiments designed to prove it have either failed or had other explanation for them.
Obviously, if I was on a spaceship and moving freely, and had a weight of 100 kg, my mass would need to be influenced by a force close to the gravitational force of Earth. However, if viewers on a lab back at Earth thought I was moving 2000 times too slowly compared to what they expected, there is something egregiously wrong with their minds.
That is the problem with Einsteinian relativity, it has the problem of a distorted mind as observer. For one, Einstein believed time is the ‘hands on a clock’. That is seriously dumb, a clock is a machine that has nothing to do with time. All a clock does is reveal the position of the Earth relative to the Sun, and on its dial, it reveals what humans told it to reveal.
Then Cam goes on…
“I cant intuitively comprehend this any better than you can but the equations predict things that keep getting confirmed by observations”.
***
So, the question I left with Cam is this, is it possible the observations have been interpreted incorrectly? He never answered that question.
—
Then Cam wrapped it up…
“There are doubts about Einsteins GRT. For example the precession of the perihelion of Mercury is not exactly what the GTR says it should be. Einstein himself was working on a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) and there are plenty of others following in his footsteps.
All this stuff is real science because it can be reproduced and the results compared to theory. When you apply this approach to Climate Science you find that very little of it can properly be called Science. Dr. Roys work excepted of course!”
***
Cam confirms that Binny’s opening statement re Mercury is bs.
“Using Newtons formulae, it is impossible to obtain a correct value for the precession of Mercurys perihelion.”
Does gravity travel at the speed of light? That alters what Newton calculated.
Apparently gravity travels faster than the speed of light. At least, as a field, it acts instantly. It takes 8 minutes for light to reach Earth from the Sun, but if there was such a delay in gravity, we’d be in trouble. One could also regard light as a field emanating from a mass, so is there really much difference re speeds?
Besides, I am not defending Newton re Mercury, I have simply noted what Cam said about Einstein’s relativity not being able to predict it accurately either.
The thing to me seems to be the unpredictable nature of the rotation of Mercury’s orbit. If the orbit is rotating as a plane, then precession seems to represent any wobble about the planar axis. I still think if it was predictable that Newton should be able to work it out.
I don’t know if something has been added to the debate but when I studied the vagaries of the Mercury orbit in an astronomy class, the problem was strictly one of relative motion. Because we are moving in an orbital path relative to Mercury, there are times in its orbit when it ‘APPEARS’ to move backwards.
I don’t see what is in Einstein’s theory that makes it so special in that respect. It merely compares the velocity of a mass to the speed of light, and using that ratio, it claims a change in time.
Well gollee!! The related forumla is S = vt where s = distance traveled at a velocity, v, over a time, t. To make it work wrt to the speed of light, Lorentz and Einstein redefined time based on a ratio of mass velocity to light velocity.
Bit of chicanery I’d say. I still don’t see what that has to do with Mercury’s orbit.
“Apparently gravity travels faster than the speed of light. At least, as a field, it acts instantly.”
Wrong!
rlh…Richard thinks it is wrong that gravity acts faster than the speed of light but he seems lost for words. He offers one of his trite comments, as if anyone is listening.
A gravitational field acts instantly but an EM field (light) takes 8 minutes from the time it is emitted from the Sun till it acts at the distance of Earth.
No one knows what causes gravity and although we have a basic understanding of how light is produced, Richard seems to think he understands both. However, he is keeping it secret, likely afraid of making a fuhl of himself.
The solution to that is simple, drop the dependence on images. If you have an image that you are important, an inordinate amount of time is spent defending that image.
RLH,
You wrote –
“Wrong!”
Are you just appealing to your own dubious authority, or intentionally trying to hide your knowledge?
Maybe you could flesh out your answer a bit, and help to educate others?
“Richard thinks it is wrong that gravity acts faster than the speed of light”
It is. the speed of gravity is well established as being at the speed of light. Where do gravity waves which have been measured come from?
“Where do gravity waves which have been measured come from?”
There seem to be differences of opinion whether gravity waves have even been detected or not. Your belief that gravity waves exist, have been measured, and their speed determined, might be more wishful thinking than fact.
Time will no doubt tell.
Musk outlines plans to increase Starship launch rate and performance
Jeff Foust April 6, 2024
https://spacenews.com/musk-outlines-plans-to-increase-starship-launch-rate-and-performance/
200,000 kg to LEO. 200 tons to Mars surface. Ice Mining. Nuclear power on Mars. $2,000,000 cost to launch 200,000 kg to LEO
I have thought of shipping nuclear waste to our Moon. But I haven’t thought of shipping nuclear waste to Mars.
I was thinking of shipping nuclear waste to the Moon for $100 per kg.
Basically impact the waste in some lunar crater.
That’s outdated.
One could land nuclear waste on the Mars surface for less than $50 per kg.
So Mars would want nuclear waste which can generate heat- without processing it and with processing it. Obviously without needing to process it, makes it more valuable on Mars.
So, fresh spent nuclear fuel which needs to stored for years in cooling ponds, costs $50 per kg, to be sent off world. And less useful nuclear waste cost $100 per kg [or more] to be shipped off world.
This should lower the cost of nuclear power on Earth.
gbaikie, shipping nuclear waste to the moon made for a good BBC TV series “Space: 1999”
However people could use nuclear waste down here for breeder reactors. Yes France shut down most of their plants. The plan may be to just let the stuff pile up.
As for Mars, the waste would make for a good space heater to warm the mars base from a distance using circulating water.
When rockets are reliable enough, nuclear waste can be sent to Sun. Sending it to Mars or Moon is just stoopid.
Sun knows how to handle it….
France intends to build more nuclear reactors including SMRs. They are fixing and bringing back online the existing ones.
French nuclear generation dropped to its lowest levels since the late 1980s in 2022 to 279 terrawatt hours (TWh) due to the corrosion problems that took a large chunk of its reactor fleet offline, coming just as several conventional maintenance operations were also scheduled.
EDF’s output started picking up in 2023, at a level of 320 TWh.
“I hope we’ll do better, obviously, in 2024, and that we’ll reach 350 TWh in 2025”, the executive said.
In February, EDF confirmed its French nuclear production targets, ranging from 315 to 345 TWh in 2024 and 335 to 365 TWh in 2025 and 2026.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/frances-edf-aims-fix-reactor-corrosion-issues-by-end-2025-executive-says-2024-04-04/
“As for Mars, the waste would make for a good space heater to warm the mars base from a distance using circulating water.”
I have thought that for Mars to be habitable planet, it needed “mineable water” which would water which costs at most $1000 per ton or $1 per kg, with idea that given few decades mars water could be a cheap as Earth water {less than $1 per ton}.
I had thought only way to do this, is to get water from Mars water wells {or you would be pump liquid water from depths which because of lower gravity could be about 3 times deeper than we do on Earth].
But Musk is talking about ice mining, and problem with that is getting the heat to melt the ice.
Mars is better than Earth to get electrical power from solar energy, but it’s not better than Earth to get solar thermal energy as compared to Earth. So, Musk was also talking about using nuclear power on Mars. Or if had a nuclear reactor one could get lots of thermal heat.
But nuclear waste can make some heat. So with nuclear waste one melt the ice.
Also by reprocessing nuclear waste, one also make nuclear reactors- as France did.
So if do a lot ice mining it’s way to get thermal heat. So it’s stored whereever one is mining the ice, and as a liquid it can be piped to settlements.
–Clint R says:
April 7, 2024 at 12:17 PM
When rockets are reliable enough, nuclear waste can be sent to Sun. Sending it to Mars or Moon is just stoopid.
Sun knows how to handle it.–
In near term, less than decade, perhaps less than 5 years, Starship could carrying crew [or more than 100 passengers]. With just lunar program we talking more than 20 starship launches. And this year going have about 6 Starship launches {FAA allowing} then 10 to 20 per year, then 50, then 100 per year. Or before doing 100 per year, it will be launching crew from Earth to orbit- and will as reliable as falcon 9 rocket, which is safest rocket which has ever launched- far safer than Space Shuttle proved to be.
As I have mentioned, hitting the Sun requires a lot delta-v. Hitting lunar surface is the least delta-v. Landing on Mars requires less delta-v than landing on the Moon {because Mars atmosphere can be used to slow down}.
But crashing lunar waste on the Moon is not particularly useful in the near term, for any Lunatic whereas landing nuclear waste on Mars it could useful in near term for Martians.
So not just nuclear waste but the metal of Starship [and engines and etc of Starship].
Also, ocean settlements on Earth.
Mars settlements will cause ocean settlements on Earth.
Mars exploration {before mars settlements] could cause ocean settlements.
Ocean settlement require electrical power and freshwater.
And garbage and sewer services, and etc.
And one has surfing areas and beaches, ferry service, airport, and again, etc.
Ocean settlement could get electrical power from nuclear power plant floating in a freshwater lake within the ocean.
And nuclear waste can shipped to launch site in ocean {and sent to Mars]
Sending thousands of tons of radioactive material to the sun! Wow that will make nuclear power affordable! Not.
And good thing there are never any rocket failures that could spill it all over creation..Not
–Nate says:
April 7, 2024 at 2:01 PM
Sending thousands of tons of radioactive material to the sun! Wow that will make nuclear power affordable! Not.
And good thing there are never any rocket failures that could spill it all over creation..Not–
hitting sun it too hard. Parker Solar Probe is the closest we have ever gotten to the Sun. It was was a mission which require one of the most energetic launches and used and is using gravity assists from Venus to get closer:
https://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
You could do something similar, spend more the decade and use a lot gravity assists, but the moon is faster and a lot less delta-v.
But just reaching Venus for a gravity assist is shorter time, and slightly less delta-v than going to Mars, but Parker Solar Probe took a faster way to get closer to sun, and has traveling more than 4 years, and it will bounce closer in another year or so.
Anyhow, we have shipped radioactive material into space. And crazies want nuclear powered rocket {which I don’t like nor think is needed].
And all these past launches were on rockets no where near as safe as Falcon-9 has already been “proven” to be.
One example:
“Kosmos 954 (Russian: Космос 954) was a reconnaissance satellite launched by the Soviet Union in 1977. A malfunction prevented safe separation of its onboard nuclear reactor; when the satellite reentered the Earth’s atmosphere the following year, it scattered radioactive debris over northern Canada, some of the debris landing in the Great Slave Lake next to Fort Resolution, NWT.
This prompted an extensive multiyear cleanup operation known as Operation Morning Light. The Canadian government billed the Soviet Union for over 6 million Canadian dollars under the terms of the Outer Space Treaty, which obligates states for damages caused by their space objects. The USSR eventually paid 3 million Canadian dollars in compensation.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954
More recent:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/19/24104979/nuclear-weapons-space-russia-putin-satellite-debris-orbit
Remember what Tom Wolfe said:
“Our rockets always blow up”
Putting nuclear waste on a rocket is about the dumbest thing you could do with it.
–bobdroege says:
April 10, 2024 at 10:58 AM
Remember what Tom Wolfe said:
Our rockets always blow up
Putting nuclear waste on a rocket is about the dumbest thing you could do with it.–
Few out of many dozens of types of rockets have be launched more than 100 times.
When rockets are first developed their is a good chance they will fail, but a rocket which has been flown more than 100 times is a proven rocket if doesn’t fail.
The idea is starship will fly enough so the will be safe enough to launch hundreds of passengers to fly across the world. That has to very proven rocket, for that to be allowed.
The most proven rocket ever, is falcon-9 rocket, the idea is that Starship will be more proven than the falcon-9 rocket.
Or Starship will be flown more than thousand times. No rocket has been flown 500 times.
Or in couple decades, we could be looking at something quite different. We not going have Mars settlement in less than couple decades.Though we might start having settlement in about two decades-
but this, we probably will flown more than 10,000 people flying suborbital- getting anywhere on Earth in less than 1 hour.
gbaikie,
135 Space Shuttle missions, 2 total losses.
Not a good track record for dispersal of radioactive waste.
Storing it forever is the better option.
Google search:
“Rockets from the Falcon 9 family have been launched 327 times over 14 years, resulting in 325 full successes (99.4%), one in-flight failure (SpaceX CRS-7), and one partial success (SpaceX CRS-1 delivered its cargo to the International Space Station (ISS), but a secondary payload was stranded in a lower-than-planned …”
And different way of saying it:
“The active version, Falcon 9 Block 5, has flown 266 missions, all full successes. In 2022 Falcon 9 set a new record of 60 launches (all successful) by the same launch vehicle type in a calendar year. The previous record was held by Soyuz-U, which had 47 launches (45 successful) in 1979.”
Soyuz used to be the most successful rocket {and it gas been flying a long time}.
Google Soyuz:
“The production of Soyuz launchers reached a peak of 60 per year in the early 1980s. It has become the world’s most used space launcher, flying over 1700 times, far more than any other rocket.”
“Over its operational lifetime, the Soyuz-U variant flew a total of 786 missions, another world record. Soyuz-U has also been one of the most reliable launchers, with a success rate of 97.3%.”
Back to falcon 9:
“2023. SpaceX launched vehicles of the Falcon family 96 times (91 Falcon 9 and 5 Falcon Heavy launches) in 2023. SpaceX CEO, Elon Musk, and SpaceX President, Gwynne Shotwell, had stated in late 2022 and early 2023 respectively, that the company would attempt up to 100 Falcon launches in 2023.”
All were successful.
Reuseably in theory should more reliable {until you reach some unknown limit of how many times it can be reused]. There are few first stages which have used 19 times, and somewhere around +20 is thought to be the limit. But it will be tested {but not with crewed launches].
> Apparently gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
That one is a keeper.
“That one is a keeper.”
Maybe you could back up your statements? That would be too helpful, would it?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Maybe you can identify the “statements”?
Just a thought.
Silly sock puppet!
Fair enough. Maybe you can provide a list of statements which you have backed up with facts. Then I will refer to those you admit you haven’t.
Only joking, you are just a cultist troll.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Let me get this straight –
You want me to support “statements” you can’t even identify?
Silly sock puppet!
Willard, please stop trolling.
How fast to gravity waves travel?
….do….
wee willy, who has barely enough sense to stay alive, took a shot at my statement that gravity acts faster than light. My use of ‘travels’ was a poor choice of words, not that I choose my words, unless my g/f is mad at me. ‘Acts’ is a better word. Gravity acts faster than light.
The source of gravity is obviously the mass with the gravitational field. However, gravitational force is claimed to act from the the COM of the body. That means it acts in all directions from the COM outward to whatever distance it can reach based on the inverse square law. It appears to act instantaneously whereas light has a time factor.
No one knows what gravity is, not even Einstein knew what it is. Einstein did not even know what light, as electromagnetic energy was in 1905 when he produced his theory, yet he claimed nothing is faster than light. The basis of that belief is based on his relativity theory which Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, wrote off as a thought experiment. If anything was faster than light then his relativity theory would not work. Einstein defined light as a basis of speed in the universe, and re-defined time to make his theory work.
It is brutally obvious that gravity produces a force that acts instantaneously at any distance from the mass. There is no apparent delay, otherwise no physics would work for calculating orbits.
Why? Why does a force created by a mass work at any distance, albeit less intense with distance, yet light requires 8 minutes to move 90 millions miles.
A basic reason is that gravity and light appear to operate differently. The source of light is electron transitions in atoms but no one knows what the source of gravity may be. All we know is that it operates like a field that can accelerate masses toward its centre. In other words, it produces a force on a mass that accelerates the mass. But how?
It seems to me that the speed of light is limited by the rate at which electrons emit it. Obviously, gravity does not have such limitations. It would appear that gravity has little or nothing to do with electrons or atoms in the sense we currently understand physics. Therefore, whatever is producing it is likely unknown.
If it was produced by electrons it would have an electric and a magnetic magnetic field associated with it. It doesn’t, and light does. That is obviously why it is bent by the Sun, which is a boiling cauldron of electrically-charged particles producing a massive electromagnetic field. The fact that so many scientists buy into the nonsense it is solar gravity bending light, as proposed by Einstein, shows us we are still mired to an extent in the Dark Ages.
Einstein was wrong about relativity, as he redefined it, and time dilation, and about the speed of light being the fastest entity in the Universe.
> Gravity acts faster than light.
🤌
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Gravity acts faster than light.”
Wrong also. What speed do gravity waves travel at?
RLH,
You posed a silly gotcha “What speed do gravity waves travel at?”.
OK, Ill bite. You tell me. You do know, don’t you?
Gravity travels at the speed of light. Not known by Newton.
RLH,
You wrote “Gravity travels at the speed of light.”
Why were you asking “What speed do gravity waves travel at?”, then?
Just trying to make someone look stupid? Nobody understands gravity. As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Nobody has measured the speed of a gravity wave. Nobody has managed to generate a gravity wave. Researchers disagree about the existence of gravity waves, and claims of their detection.
Your statement that “Gravity travels at the speed of light” may be correct – or it may not. At the moment, just speculation.
Nobody really knows.
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Why were you asking What speed do gravity waves travel at?, then?”
Because Mr. Asshat pretends that gravity moves faster than light!
Do you ever read the threads in which you comment?
Silly sock puppet!
Whining Wee Willy,
“Why were you asking “What speed do gravity waves travel at?”, then? ”
Posing a gontcha purely to make someone look stupid, is trolling, you nitwit.
According to RLH’s link, gravity waves do not mean what you think they mean. Your excuse “Because Mr. Asshat pretends that gravity moves faster than light”, is just more trolling.
There is no “Mr Asshat”, is there? You are just trying to be gratuitously offensive for no reason at all! Feel free to correct me, if I am wrong.
You seem to be losing the plot, and just lashing out because the GHE fantasy is losing appeal for many. Everyone is entitled to freedom of thought, in my view. If someone wants to believe in phlogiston, caloric, luminiferous ether, or the GHE, they are perfectly entitled to do so. Don’t you agree?
If I believe differently, and I can provide facts to support my opinion, people can make up their own minds whether to support my beliefs – or not. If you don’t agree, bad luck for you. You have precisely no power to force me to accept your bizarre fantasies as fact.
So off you go, Willard, keep avoiding any mention of the GHE. You’re definitely learning.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Just trying to make someone look stpid?”
You can do that all by yourself, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner perfects the art of thread necromancy.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
tim s…”Adults use a concept called hyperbole to exaggerate when emphasis is required. You should look that up”.
***
Is that like saying, ‘exactly the same’?
tim s…” If just half the money spent on researching climate change was spent on breeder reactor development, we would already have it in use”.
***
Good point. Rather than tackle the problem of radiation head on, we ran for the hill after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
An article on the number of deaths and injuries from car collisions in the US each year…
“There are thousands of car accidents in the United States every day. As a result, there are tens of thousands of deaths annually. Personal injury from a car accident comprises most personal injury claims every year. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that there were 33,244 fatal car crashes in the United States in 2019, where 36,096 people died”.
https://arashlaw.com/how-many-car-accidents-are-there-in-the-usa-per-day/
We don’t even think we could die or be injured when we get into our cars each day, yet we have developed a morbid fear of nuclear radiation. At one time, in the 1940s, the US Army did not even thing nuclear radiation was important. It was Linus Pauling who brought the danger to the awareness of the US public and his initial thanks was a visit from the FBI, investigating him as a Communist.
It is simply not clear how much radiation is dangerous and exactly what it can do to the human body. People seem to confuse the atomic bombs dropped in Japan during WW II with nuclear radiation, however, it was not the radiation that killed so many people. Most people who died were directly exposed to the initial blast of extremely high intensity EM energy as well as the tremndous concussion.. People standing a few feet away but shielded from the blast, lived a long and healthy life.
There was a problem with cancer induced by residual contamination but I don’t think that was ever researched properly. Even after the blasts, radiation was regarded as unimportant. So, we don’t really know, even today, what the issue may be.
So, why can we not design nuclear plants to be safe, even during a melt down? My opinion is thrift and stoopidity. Just as the same mentality designs aircraft to fly across oceans with only two motors instead of 4, the designers of nuclear plants are more interested in cost saving than life saving. Then there are private contractors who cut corners to increase their profits. Entire high rises have collapsed due to contractor cost cutting.
> It is simply not clear how much radiation is dangerous and exactly what it can do to the human body.
Mr. Asshat is a gift that keeps on giving!
“Mr. Asshat is a gift that keeps on giving!”
Maybe you could educate readers – how much radiation is dangerous, and exactly what does it do to the human body?
Bear in mind that radiation, or light, covers wavelengths from zero to infinity. Go on now, demonstrate your knowledge! Only joking, you are an ignorant cultist.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Save you ijit remarks for people who were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and who lived a full life. We have essentially zero research on the effect of radiation on humans since it would be unethical to performs such research. I am sure they have killed innocent animals in that pursuit but they could never replicate the actual conditions of being exposed to radiation.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Maybe you could educate readers”
About what – the 500 rem limit?
That certainly wouldn’t educate you, silly sock puppet!
Maybe you could educate readers how much radiation is dangerous, and exactly what does it do to the human body?
Bear in mind that radiation, or light, covers wavelengths from zero to infinity. Go on now, demonstrate your knowledge! Only joking, you are an ignorant cultist.
Saying something really stupid, like “the 500 rem limit”, does not help anybody at all in understanding how much “radiation” is dangerous, nor how “radiation” affects the human body.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Maybe commenting under your real Climateball name would inform readers that you are repeating talking points you repeated more than fifteen years ago?
Silly sock puppet!
Maybe you could educate readers how much radiation is dangerous, and exactly what does it do to the human body?
Bear in mind that radiation, or light, covers wavelengths from zero to infinity. Go on now, demonstrate your knowledge! Only joking, you are an ignorant cultist.
Saying something really stupid, like the 500 rem limit, does not help anybody at all in understanding how much radiation is dangerous, nor how radiation affects the human body.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Maybe your copypastas do not inform readers?
Silly sock puppet!
Maybe you could educate readers how much radiation is dangerous, and exactly what does it do to the human body?
Bear in mind that radiation, or light, covers wavelengths from zero to infinity. Go on now, demonstrate your knowledge! Only joking, you are an ignorant cultist.
Saying something really stupid, like the 500 rem limit, does not help anybody at all in understanding how much radiation is dangerous, nor how radiation affects the human body.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Maybe you could educate readers how much radiation is dangerous, and exactly what does it do to the human body?
Bear in mind that radiation, or light, covers wavelengths from zero to infinity. Go on now, demonstrate your knowledge! Only joking, you are an ignorant cultist.
Saying something really stupid, like “the 500 rem limit”, does not help anybody at all in understanding how much radiation is dangerous, nor how radiation affects the human body.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Maybe you could help readers by clarifying what you are braying about.
Silly sock puppet!
“Bear in mind that radiation, or light, covers wavelengths from zero to infinity. Go on now, demonstrate your knowledge! Only joking, you are an ignorant cultist.”
Bear in mind that all radiation is not light.
Gamma radiation is light, but at much shorter wavelengths than visible light.
But there is also beta, alpha, and neutron radiation, and even more exotic kinds.
But then, Swenson, you don’t know what you don’t know.
Gordon,
Stay in your lane.
“Good point. Rather than tackle the problem of radiation head on, we ran for the hill after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.”
No we didn’t, after TMI, all US nuclear plants underwent numerous design changes to make the nuclear plants safer.
The plant I worked at was initially supposed to cost 1 billion dollars, but went on line after more than 4 billion was spent, and then was sold for 450 million.
Not a very wise investment.
People like to champion nuclear power, but it is just too expensive these days.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In the relativistic sense, the “speed of gravity” refers to the speed of a gravitational wave, which, as predicted by general relativity and confirmed by observation of the GW170817 neutron star merger, is equal to the speed of light (c).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
I am unaware of any reproducible experiments to support Einstein’s conjectures about the nature of gravity. His conjectures about the impossibility of quantum entanglement have been disproved by experiment, as has his refusal to accept the uncertainty principle.
Have you considered just quoting irrelevant stuff, hoping somebody even dimmer than you will think you are wise?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
I agree with you –
You are unaware of many things.
What are you going to do about it?
Silly sock puppet!
Willard, please stop trolling.
More tommyrot from Einstein. Gravity and light have nothing in common, why should they conveniently move at the same speed? Besides, a gravity wave is a theoretical concept based on Einstein’s nonsense. No such thing.
In Einstein’s relativity theory, it works only if certain things are hypothesized. One of those ‘things’ is time having a reality, so it can change its length as mass gets faster and approaches the speed of light. Ergo, Einstein redefined time to fit his theory.
How wonderfully convenient. If theory makes no sense, simply invent and redefine reality to make it work. That concept is used liberally in the GHE theory as well as climate change theory in general.
> Gravity and light have nothing in common
🤌🤌🤌
Willard, please stop trolling.
Sure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
“In fluid dynamics, gravity waves are waves generated in a fluid medium or at the interface between two media when the force of gravity or buoyancy tries to restore equilibrium. An example of such an interface is that between the atmosphere and the ocean, which gives rise to wind waves.”
“Gravitational waves are waves of the intensity of gravity that are generated by the accelerated masses of binary stars and other motions of gravitating masses, and propagate as waves outward from their source at the speed of light. They were first proposed by Oliver Heaviside in 1893 and then later by Henri Poincar in 1905 as the gravitational equivalent of electromagnetic waves. Gravitational waves are sometimes called gravity waves, but gravity waves typically refer to displacement waves in fluids”
–People also ask
What is the orbital period of the Sun’s barycenter?
(mainly) 19.86-year periodic motion of the Sun around the barycenter of the solar system.Feb 10, 2023–
I would venture that the solar barycentre is as much a myth physically as is the Earth’s barycentre due to the lunar orbit. A barycentre is more a mathematical calculation of a theorized centre of mass than it is a practical measure of solar deviation from a centre.
I am sure Richard (RLH) will be along with a one-words refutation of my point.
Theoretically, the planets pull on the Sun and the Sun must pull back on the planets in an equal and opposite direction. However, Newton’s 3rd law is not meant to measure such vanishingly small forces as are experienced between the planets and the Sun. The force exerted by the Moon on the Earth, is enough to raise the oceans by one metre at peak deviation but not nearly enough to move the entire Earth from its orbital path.
But how does one calculate that direction, or deviation, when the planets are in different parts of their orbits at different times? At times, the planets are all aligned in a row, which should theoretically pull the Sun to an extreme. That should be true when the largest planets Jupiter and Saturn are in a row. However, Earth, Venus and Mars, being closer to the Sun should have a considerable effect as well. However, there is no significant, measurable effect re barycentres.
I argued this in the past on Roy’s blog. Based on the relative masses of the Earth and the Moon, the calculated Earth barycentre should move the Earth in a loop with a diameter of about 2000 km. The only motion of that kind ever measured is related to a wobble in the Earth’s axis of about a 4 foot deviation per Earth rotation.
There is no evidence of a physical barycentre in the Earth-Moon interaction and I seriously doubt that one exists in the solar barycentre.
Gordon,
You wrote –
“However, Newtons 3rd law is not meant to measure such vanishingly small forces as are experienced between the planets and the Sun. The force exerted by the Moon on the Earth, is enough to raise the oceans by one metre at peak deviation but not nearly enough to move the entire Earth from its orbital path.”
The forces involved are obviously great enough to stop the Earth from continuing in a straight line, vanishing into the great beyond, and likewise the Moon.
Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. The strong nuclear force is about 10^40 times stronger. Imagine the gravitational force of a single photon exerted on another photon on the other side of the universe – vanishingly small.
Do photons exert gravitational force? Yes, according to “The gravitational field created by a single photon is determined by taking into account the relativistic mass of the photon as source of gravitational interaction.”
However, even this virtually non-existent gravitation force between two photons at opposite ends of the universe is theoretically sufficient to cause completely unpredictable effects on the chaotic system that is the universe. Another “big bang”, perhaps?
All a bit of a mystery to me, so I’ll just keep on hoping for a quiet life. Others may have differing opinions, of course.
That’s one of the amazing things about gravity, that a relatively weak force at the altitude of the Moon can keep such a huge mass in orbit. Although the force near the surface is strong enough to accelerate a mass at 9.8 m/s^2, at the altitude of the Moon, the accelerating force is only a tiny fraction of the force at the surface.
Gravitational force at the altitude of the Moon is not enough to accelerate it as in f = ma but it is enough to divert the Moon about 5 metres out of its linear path every 8000 metres. That on-going diversion is enough to hold the Moon in an orbit that follows the curvature of the Earth.
The tremendous momentum of the Moon is also a contributing factor. Gravity simply cannot divert it enough from its linear momentum to cause an acceleration toward Earth.
Re photons, I don’t accept that such a massless entity exists never mind it having a gravitational field. Whereas I appreciate your comment on them, I think much of the theory is largely bs.
It seems obvious that electrons emit a quantum of energy that someone has rebranded as a photon. However, that quantum has a frequency and an indeterminate size. Somehow, bazzillions of those quanta have to form into a cohesive wavefront and that has never been explained. When we talk of a photon of light, when the light is comprised of bazillions of frequencies, how is that explained on the basis of photons, which have only one frequency?
To take a quantum of energy, where it is comprised of en electric and magnetic field, and give it magical gravitational properties is a bit too much for me.
-I would venture that the solar barycentre is as much a myth physically as is the Earths barycentre due to the lunar orbit.–
“How do barycenters help us find other planets?
If a star has planets, the star orbits around a barycenter that is not at its very center. This causes the star to look like its wobbling.”
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/
Do you think stars with planets can cause stars to wobble?
“that a relatively weak force …”
I would not call 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 N a weak force.
“not enough to accelerate it “
The moon moves in a (roughly) circular path. Circular motion is accelerated motion. a = v^2/r. It is trivial to plug in the moon’s speed and distance from earth to get the acceleration.
“That on-going diversion is …” acceleration!
If you make a linear regression of the trend (I used the linear fit of the red line, for simplicity), then the vertical distance of the uppermost blue points from this line is now practically the same as in 1998. It is approximately 0.7C above the trend line.
How does your linear regression line treat the data from before 1979?
I do not treat them, I just take the red line in the graph (above) and make a best fit with the least squares method
Isnt this jump in the lower troposphere strange?
https://i.ibb.co/ZhfXwMj/from-2015.png
https://i.ibb.co/VSc3mw1/cdas-sflux-ssta-global-1.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202404.gif
Very strange. And highly unlikely to have been caused by a trace gas.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The relationship between light and gravity is a fascinating one, and it’s all about bending! Here’s the breakdown:
– Light bends around gravity: According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, gravity isn’t a force pulling on objects, but rather a warping of spacetime itself. Massive objects like stars and planets cause dips in this fabric, and light, traveling along this curved path, bends as a result.
– Light has no mass, but it’s affected: Though light itself doesn’t have mass, it carries energy, and according to E=mc, energy and mass are equivalent. So, even though there’s no physical attraction, gravity’s influence on spacetime affects how light travels.
This bending of light has been observed during solar eclipses, where starlight is slightly deflected by the sun’s gravity. This effect is more pronounced for very massive objects, like black holes.
Here are some resources for further exploration:
– PBS Space Time video on “How Does Gravity Affect Light?” (https://www.pbs.org/video/how-does-gravity-affect-light-zx47ji/)
– Explanation on how gravity alters the trajectory of light https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/04/26/this-is-why-einstein-knew-that-gravity-must-bend-light/
wee willy…”According to Einsteins theory of general relativity, gravity isnt a force pulling on objects, but rather a warping of spacetime itself…”
***
One of the most stoopid theories ever developed in physics. When Einstein developed this theory in 1905, nothing was known about electromagnetic energy and its relation to electrons in atoms. We now know clearly that EM is comprised of an electric field and a magnetic field and neither are affected by gravity. However, the Sun has an immense electromagnetic field that can bend the EM field of light.
It is apparent that Einstein chose to ignore the new theory of EM by Bohr in 1914 and carried on stubbornly with his dumb thought-experiment. Had he listened to Bohr, he could not possibly have missed the fact that it is EM in the Sun that bends light and not gravity.
If gravity bent EM it would have an effect on all communications signals, which are also EM. Laser beams would be bent off course enough to realize an external force was affecting them. If we shone a flashlight close to the surface of the Earth, it should bend in an arc toward the surface.
The entire notion of space-time is ludicrous. Both space and time in that context are inventions of the human mind. Space becomes a 3-D field in which the coordinate are human inventions. Time is clearly a human invention based on the rotational speed of the Earth. According to Einstein, then, there is no such force as gravity and masses are affected by two imaginary concepts acting in tandem.
I just wish we had Newton here today to straight out this mess.
> One of the most stoopid theories [General relativity] ever developed in physics.
🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌
Willard, please stop trolling.
“However, the Sun has an immense electromagnetic field that can bend the EM field of light.”
F = qE + qvxB
Light has no charge. Therefore the ‘immense electromagnetic field’ has no effect on uncharged light.
And Einstein’s predictions accurately predicted the gravitational bending around the sun. And since then, relativity has accurately predicted gravitational bending by innumerable other objects.
Your hypothesis fails but theoretical and experimental tests.
wee willy, the contrarian trohl, albeit a harmless trohl, objects to my claim that not enough is known about nuclear radiation to fear nuclear power plants. I became curious about the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and found some studies.
The moral to my story, in advance, is this: there is no comparison between the effect of a failed nuclear reactors and an atomic bomb. A sub-moral is this: the overall effect of nuclear radiation is unknown. We know it can be dangerous in certain situations but we cannot account for all situations.
I want to be clear that I don’t take lightly what those poor souls endured in the name of an arrogant emperor and equally arrogant armed forces. Japan was surrounded at war’s end and they knew there was no way out without dying for their stoopid and ignorant cause (Bushido code), that lead them to murder innocents all over Asia. They had decided to take the innocent population with them and Truman had no option, other than millions of allied troops possibly dying in a futile cause, and he dropped an A-bomb on Hiroshimo. When the arrogant emperor of Japan still refused to concede, Truman ordered another bomb dropped on Nagasaki.
I have no legitimate justification to offer for these actions or any other bombings in Europe, war is war, and it makes absolutely no sense. Let’s be clear, there is no way to justify the horrors of war but there are times, like WWII, where failing to engage in war leads to life that is just as intolerable. There are so many ijits today who, never having experience war, think you can avert it simply by talking about it, or waving the ‘V’ sign.
However, I am surprised at the number of people who survived that horror in Nagasaki and Hiroshimo.
A uranium bomb as dropped on Hiroshimo and a plutonium bomb as dropped on Nagasaki, stirs up clouds of radioactive dust and debris that can drift for miles, sometimes hundreds of miles. That would affect far more people than a localized disaster like a nuclear plant going out of control. Radiation from such an event could be easily limited whereas a nuclear bomb debris would affect everyone in an area.
According to one article I read, there are people who were exposed to radiation in Hiroshimo who out-lived people who were not exposed.
http://www.crpr-su.se/literature/Hiroshima%20and%20Nagasaki%20-%20longetivity%20Cologne%20Lancet%202000.pdf
In the following link can be found this quote with reference to the number of survivors of Hiroshimo/Nagasaki. …
“As of the end of March 2007, the total is 251,834.”
https://www.hiroshimapeacemedia.jp/hiroshima-koku/en/exploration/index_20071022.html
250,000 people still live some 60 years after suffering nuclear radiation. Good for them, they are a testament to the hardiness of the human body and soul.
> According to one article I read
🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
There’s no single, definitive answer to “safe” when it comes to radiation exposure. It depends on a few factors:
Type of radiation: There are two main types: ionizing and non-ionizing. Ionizing radiation (X-rays, gamma rays) is more dangerous because it has enough energy to directly damage cells, while non-ionizing radiation (radio waves, visible light) generally doesn’t.
Dose of radiation: This refers to the amount of radiation absorbed by the body. It’s measured in units called millisieverts (mSv) or Sieverts (Sv). Here’s a general breakdown of effects based on dose:
Low dose (less than 100 mSv): This range typically has no immediate health effects. It includes background radiation we encounter daily and some medical procedures like X-rays.
Moderate dose (100 mSv – 1 Sv): This can cause mild radiation sickness with symptoms like fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. Recovery is usually expected.
High dose (1 Sv – 5 Sv): This can cause more severe radiation sickness, with increased risk of infection, hair loss, and internal bleeding. There’s a chance of death depending on the exact dose.
Cheers.
We are talking about nuclear reactors and any danger they present to the public. There is no doubt that prolonged doses of radiation beyond a certain level can have lethal consequences. So can xrays, but they are used regularly in medicine and dentistry.
The question is, if a nuclear plant gors into meltdown, are the public i significant danger, specially with modern technology, which rules out Chernobyl. Furthermore, can meltdown be contained? We need a way to shut down a nuclear chain-reaction and there is evidence that can be done.
Yes, a nuclear reactor meltdown poses a significant danger to the public, though the severity depends on several factors. Here’s why:
Radiation Release: During a meltdown, the reactor core heats up excessively, damaging the containment structure and potentially releasing radioactive materials into the surrounding environment. This radioactive cloud can travel long distances depending on weather conditions, contaminating air, water, and soil.
Health Risks: Exposure to radiation can cause a range of health problems, including:
Acute Radiation Sickness: This can occur at high exposure levels, causing symptoms like nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and hair loss. In severe cases, it can be fatal.
Increased Cancer Risk: Radiation exposure increases the risk of developing various cancers over time.
Genetic Damage: Radiation can damage DNA, potentially leading to birth defects in future generations.
Willard,
When I asked – “Maybe you could educate readers how much radiation is dangerous, and exactly what does it do to the human body?”, you responded “Theres no single, definitive answer to safe when it comes to radiation exposure. It depends on a few factors:”.
Earlier, of course, when someone included in a comment “It is simply not clear how much radiation is dangerous and exactly what it can do to the human body.”, you responded “Mr. Asshat is a gift that keeps on giving!”, demonstrating your juvenile GHE cultist mentality.
At least you have copied some more or less relevant radiation, which is vague enough to be useless. In other words, you cannot justify your trolling of someone who said “it is simply not clear how much radiation is dangerous, and exactly what it can do to the human body”, and your sarcasm just makes you look stupid.
Some radiation is harmful to some people in some cases, depending on circumstances.
I suggest the asshat is you.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“When I asked”
Should anyone care about what you ask?
Cheers.
“Should anyone care about what you ask?”
You obviously did.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“You obviously did”
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Willard, please stop trolling.
rlh…”[GR]Gravity acts faster than light.
[Richard]Wrong also. What speed do gravity waves travel at?
***
Explain a gravity wave.
There is no such thing in Newtonian mechanics as a gravity wave, it is a super-dumb concept based on the odd notion that the universe is comprised of a 4-D fabric made up of a 3-D space with a 4th dimension, time, attached to it.
If you swallow that propaganda, Richard, there is no hope for you. It is reasonable to presume a 3-D universe for scientific calculation but it needs to be understood that the human mind imposed those dimensions on a dimensionless space. Axes, and units of kilometres and seconds do not exist in the real universe. All of them were invented by the human mind to keep tract of observed phenomena.
To attach an imaginary 4th dimension of time to a 3-D conceptual space, and project it as a reality is utter nonsense. One of the problems with higher education is becoming prone to accepting what one is taught as absolute truth. Universities tend to resist original thought when it contrasts with what they are teaching. We are seeing that today where universities try to impose inanities like gender identity and race equality on the faculty, firing anyone who protest.
I spoke to an EE prof about the way current flow is presented as flowing positive to negative. In my textbooks, they are careful to point out that electron flow is from negative to positive, but they fail to explain what it is that flows positive to negative. The prof was non-committal but he replied that it doesn’t matter which way current flows with calculations as long as one keeps tract of the signs of voltage drops.
Whereas that is true it is also a cop-out since he is perpetuating a lie that is an anachronism dating back to the 1920s. At the time, current flow was based on an imaginary positive test charge that has no existence in a real conductor. There are no positive charges with mass like the electron, only imaginary holes left behind when an electron leaves the valence band of an atom, leaving behind a relative positive charge that has no mass and no existence other than in a relative sense as a charge.
Therefore it is a lie when electrical current is taught as flowing positive to negative. It is also a lie when the universe is described as a fabric of space and time, in lieu of actual forces crated by gravity.
I am surprised that you have become so imbued with Einstein’s nonsense that you cannot even question it.
“Explain a gravity wave.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1660939
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational-wave_observatory
RLH finds something on the Internet that he believes in. He doesn’t understand the physics involved, but it sounds “sciency”, so he believes in it. He can’t even find the obvious mistake in the text, “The amplitude of a spherical wave falls off as the inverse of the distance from the source.”. It sounds “sciency”, but it’s WRONG.
To make it worse, RLH can’t learn.
So now the inverse square law doesn’t exist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
What doesn’t exist is your ability to understand any of this.
“…falls off as the inverse of the distance from the source.”
“…is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity.”
See if you can learn….
So the square is not an inverse?
“The amplitude of a spherical wave falls off as the inverse of the distance from the source.. It sounds sciency, but its WRONG.”
Actually, that is correct!
The POWER of a wave falls off as the inverse square of the distance.
The AMPLITUDE of a wave falls off simply as the inverse of the distance.
Exactly as stated.
Anyone who has studied waves will have learned this simple fact at one point. The energy in a wave is proportional to the SQUARE of the amplitude.
This is a perfect example of the cult at work.
RLH refuses being corrected. He now confuses “inverse” with “square”. And Folkerts jumps in to add to the confusion.
This is why they can’t learn.
“And Folkerts jumps in to add to the confusion.”
It’s not my fault correct science confuses you, clint.
It’s your fraud that confuses the children, Folkerts
Got a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, yet?
I have a short comment. Detection of a gravity wave on earth, that has travel a long distance in space and time, is just an observation of that effect. It is just one part of the wave circumference. It is reasonable to expect gravity waves to behave the way other waves behave because the wave is spreading out as it moves, but I have not seen any evidence in the science that humans have observed the whole wave.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1661007
“It’s your fraud that confuses the children, Folkerts”
There is no fraud that wave amplitude falls off inversely with distance.
Here there is only your confusion about about amplitude and power. And your deflection to try to mask your error.
This perfect example of the cult at work continues.
They got caught, and now attempt to twist and spin their way out.
Expect they will get some needed help soon….
RLH,
You wrote –
“So the square is not an inverse?”
Of course not, else it would have been called an inverse.
If you accept that the field falls off as the inverse cube of distance, as expected from a system with a magnetic dipole moment, in relation to a magnetic field, would you accept that the cube is an inverse?
This might lead one to ask “So the square is not a cube?”.
Of course not, else it would have been called a cube.
Silly semantic games don’t make you look particularly wise – in my opinion, at least. Others may look at you in awe.
Mike Flynn,
Addition is the inverse of subtraction.
Yet it’s not called “an inverse.”
What exactly are you trying to prove with your imbecility?
Cheers.
“Addition is the inverse of subtraction.”
Gee, who knew?
Willard, please stop trolling.
No, Clint, you are the one who got caught. We all see it.
The amplitude of a spherical wave DOES fall off as the inverse of the distance from the source.
So you keep trying to divert. But you can’t erase what you wrote.
Next Folkerts will try to re-define “spherical” or “wave”. Semantics is just one of his tricks.
Remember, this is the guy that came up with the nonsense that leads to ice cubes boiling water!
Just admit you were wrong, Clint. What you claimed was an “obvious mistake” that sounded “sciency” but was “WRONG” was in fact correct. Spherical waves DO fall off in amplitude inversely with distance.
Wow Folkerts, you’re really desperate to try to pull this one out. But, you can’t fight reality. You should have learned that by now.
You’re pretty sure you’re right here. Are you as sure as you were with ice cubes boiling water, or your “frictionless axle”?
You’ve been soooo wrong soooo many times….
Tim,
“It is well-known that there is no spherical/topologically spherical gravitational waves in vacuum space in general relativity”
I assume you know this, and are trying to muddy the waters with semantics.
How is your description of the GHE going? Any improvement on “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”
Given that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature over the last four and a half billion years, your GHE claim is just plain nonsense, isn’t it?
Maybe you could appeal to your own authority, and describe the GHE. Feel free to use your knowledge of gravity, and Einstein’s theory of general relativity, where relevant. You’re right, I’m just having a laugh at your expense. Nobody can describe the GHE in any way that agrees with reality – because the GHE is a cultist fantasy!
“Youre pretty sure youre right here.” Because I am. My answer agrees with the physics found in textbooks on the subject.
You were ALSO pretty sure you were right. Arrogantly sure, in fact. You belittled an “obvious mistake” that was not a mistake after all. Providing correct answer seems like “confusion” to you.
Why should anyone think you are correct on anything when accurate, basic physics is “obvious mistakes” to you?
You actually have a “physics” book, Folkerts?
You sure it’s not a “psychics” book? That’s where you might find “voodoo” stuff like ice cubes can boil water and passenger jets fly backward.
You need to find a REAL physics book.
To paraphrase ….
To make it worse, Clint cant learn.
Clint refuses being corrected.
Sorry Folkerts, but paraphrasing ain’t physics.
You need to find a REAL physics book. Try a library. Get an adult to help you.
Sorry, Clint, but paraphrasing was not meant to be physics. Just like your original comments were not physics. My paraphrasing was meant to highlight that you have the same problems with comprehension that you accuse others of.
Physics textbooks are very clear about orbits and rotations and angular momentum and adding fluxes. You just look silly when you tell people to ‘learn some physics’ when physics texts so clearly disagree with so much of what you write.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner always ends up PSTering.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Explain a gravity wave.
Gravity waves are ripples in the fabric of spacetime itself, caused by accelerating masses. Imagine dropping a pebble in a calm pond. The pebble disrupts the smooth surface, creating ripples that travel outward. Gravity waves work in a similar way, but instead of spreading through water, they travel through the very fabric of space and time.
Gravity waves travel through the very fabric of space and time.
A duh!!! and a Homer Simpson, Doh!!!
Has anyone with half a brain even thought of this seriously? What is their in space and/or time to create waves? When a pebble is dropped in water, it displaces real water molecules…a mass interacting with a mass. What is there is space or time to ripple?
Come on…please!!! Some brain power.
Mr. Asshat soldiers on:
Gravitational waves are fundamentally different from other waves like light or sound. They don’t travel through a medium like air or water. Instead, they are ripples in spacetime itself.
Imagine spacetime as a fabric. When massive objects move around or accelerate in a very dramatic way, like colliding black holes or neutron stars, they distort this fabric. These distortions travel outward as waves, kind of like ripples on a pond when you throw a stone in.
So, for gravitational waves, the “there” in space and time becomes spacetime itself. The intense motions of massive objects create these ripples in the very fabric of space and time, which propagate outward at the speed of light.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Imagine spacetime as a fabric.”. Typical admonition from someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Rather like a fanatical GHE cultist saying “imagine the GHE as a stack of blankets . . .”, or describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Imagination is one thing, reality quite often another. You have no idea about the space-time continuum, do you?
Feel free to ask me for help. I’ll just laugh at you, of course. Why should I help someone like you?
Mike Flynn,
TL:DR
What are you braying about?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Imagine spacetime as a fabric.”. Typical admonition from someone who doesnt know what they are talking about.
Rather like a fanatical GHE cultist saying “imagine the GHE as a stack of blankets . . .”, or describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Imagination is one thing, reality quite often another. You have no idea about the space-time continuum, do you?
Feel free to ask me for help. Ill just laugh at you, of course. Why should I help someone like you?
Mike Flynn,
TL;DR
What were you braying about?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Imagine spacetime as a fabric.”. Typical admonition from someone who doesnt know what they are talking about.
Rather like a fanatical GHE cultist saying “imagine the GHE as a stack of blankets . . .”, or describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Imagination is one thing, reality quite often another. You have no idea about the space-time continuum, do you?
Feel free to ask me for help. Ill just laugh at you, of course. Why should I help someone like you?
Your response – “Mike Flynn,
TL;DR
What were you braying about?” provides sufficient information for others to make their own assessments of the extent of your obvious mental impairment.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You brayed –
Something.
But what?
Silly sock puppet!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Snow has fallen overnight in Australia’s mainland ski resorts and continues to tumble down on Tuesday morning as a cold front sweeps across southeast Australia.
qCzM4Qy2pzBc6hHHxy3dGe_LtyDfQKglCM5M_aem_AfY0ak0cOP0muMRLGicFG0rJpu413XLf1AjUlj_fQfwShv60mic0salffyyOo7bG6lzbY4fCyVQ6uA9HxR0C1OU9
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/
Tropical cyclone Olga attacks in northwestern Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/X7YFyMb/himawari9-ir-21-S-202404091210.gif
Just how rapidly do you expect the accumulation of solar enegy by rotating bodies to increase ?
Simple:
(Tsat.planet.1)/(Tsat.planet.2) =[(N1*cp1)/(N2*cp2)]^1/16
Where:
N rotations/day, is the planets axial spin.
cp cal/gr*oC, is the planets average surface specific heat.
**********************
Example: Planet 2 rotates twice as fast as Planet 1.
(N2) = 2*(N1) everything else equals,
(T2) = (2)^1/16 *(T1) = 1,0443*(T1)
If (T1) = 250K, (T2) = 1,0443*250K = 261K
(T2) = 261K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Most forecast models suggest that El Nio will officially end in the next few months, with the Pacific Ocean expected to return to a neutral ENSO state (neither El Nio nor La Nia) by May.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202404.gif
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
And La Nina thereafter.
Yes, el Nino ending around July/August is currently common to most models.
“And La Nina thereafter.”
Is not currently common to most models. About half forecast la Nina towards the end of the year, half forecast neutral. None forecast a repeat el Nino.
Solar wind
speed: 457.0 km/sec
density: 9.90 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 09 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 79
https://www.spaceweather.com/
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 125 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.37×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.3% Low
6 numbered sunspots.
April so far, has had low sunspot numbers, and in first 1/2 of month it should a low average. And again, there a pretty good chance of crossing the red curved line. And the blue line [average] will drop significantly. And for my guess {fat line and thin line to both crossing cycle 24 numbers] the blue line in next couple months has to drop significantly.
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
08 April – 04 May 2024
Solar activity is expected to be at low to moderate levels
throughout the outlook period, with C-class flare activity expected
and a varying chance for M-class flare activity.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Solar wind
speed: 443.7 km/sec
density: 8.57 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 10 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 64
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 124 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.25×10*10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.8% Low
Solar wind
speed: 462.8 km/sec
density: 8.05 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 54
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 131 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.18×10^10 W Warm\
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Low
4 numbered spots, with moderate size spot coming from farside {which will be numbered}. No spot is within a few days of going to the farside.
Solar wind
speed: 405.5 km/sec
density: 3.93 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 12 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 81
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 144 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.18×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Low
5 numbered sunspots. None are leaving, and I don’t see a spot coming from farside, yet.
If month was 81 sunspot, it crashes thru red line and blue line drops a lot. And reasonable guess is 90 to 100, which would cross red line.
But could be less than 80 and could even get a spotless day, but we guessing the big spot is coming back.
Today’s temperatures in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/tLZ7cMx/ventusky-temperature-5cm-20240409t2000-1.jpg
tim f …”that a relatively weak force
I would not call 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 N a weak force.
not enough to accelerate it
The moon moves in a (roughly) circular path. Circular motion is accelerated motion. a = v^2/r. It is trivial to plug in the moons speed and distance from earth to get the acceleration.
That on-going diversion is acceleration!”
***
You are playing with numbers, Tim, and presenting them in a devious manner. At Earth’s surface, the force exerted by gravity is 9.8 newtons per kilogram. By the time that force is reduced by the inverse square law, at the Moon’s surface it is only a tiny fraction of 9.8 N/m^2.
If the Moon was sitting still, then your large number would apply. The Moon would begin moving along a radial line toward us and as it got closer, the force applied by Earth’s gravity would increase with lowering altitude. Then we would have true acceleration.
As I stipulated in my post, the Moon’s tremendous linear momentum has a huge influence on how far the Moon can move vertically and as it turns out Earth’s gravity is jut enough to move it 5 metres off its tangential path for every 8000 metres of tangential motion. That motion is just enough to keep it in a near circular orbit that suits the Earth’s curvature.
With a = v^2/r, why should there be a straight exponential relationship between a and v? And since acceleration, by definition, is a constantly changing velocity, meaning distance moved per second is increasing exponentially, why is the distance moved through deviation of the Moon from its straight line path a linear function?
I don’t call that motion an acceleration and applying a= v^2/r is simply wrong. The derivation of that formula comes from the assumption that acceleration can be derived in vector form from the change in direction of a vector alone.
If the Moon has a constant velocity, and it has a constant tangential velocity, it can have no acceleration. Newton knew that back in the 1600s and specified it in Principia. He declared that the Moon moves with a linear motion that is bent into a curvilinear motion by gravity. He said nothing about it being accelerated.
Therefore, the deviation of the lunar tangential velocity vector by Earth’s gravitational field is just that, a linear deviation, and not an acceleration.
By definition, an acceleration requires a change in velocity per second. It is measured in m/s^2. If the Moon’s vertical deviation is to be measured in m/s^2 it has to mean that the distance deviated changes with time. It doesn’t, the deviation is a simple linear change in distance per unit time, which translates to a linear deviation in m/s.
Someone erred grossly when they claimed a change in vector direction is an acceleration. I took a semester course in vector calculus, preceded by a semester course in linear algebra, and I remember clearly how vectors are added and multiplied.
If you take a vector in 3-D, it will have components in the x, y, and z directions. Each component will have a direction and a scalar quantity to indicate the vector magnitude. The directions are indicated by unit vectors, marked i,j, and k, each with value 1. Therefore the magnitude of each vector is that unit vector multiplied by the scalar quantity.
It is the scalars that are added or multiplied, not the unit vectors that indicate direction,
If you want to multiply the vectors, you apply the scalar quantities in a matrix, which preserve the x,y, and z component directions. The point to understand is that the direction vectors, i,j, and K with value one, do not influence the final vector scalar value, only give it a new direction. Of course, the resultant vector will change direction but only because the scalars are different.
If we look at a mass in a circular orbit, moving with a constant velocity, why should there be an acceleration? With the Moon moving in an orbit with a constant tangential velocity, there can be no acceleration factor. What people are calling an acceleration, or a constant falling motion, is in fact a deviation produced by a gravitational field.
Of course, people who apply equations and don’t understand the underlying vector theory, will try to apply equations blindly and presume an acceleration.
Can anyone show me a practical application of a = v^2/r. This is not a gotcha, I mean it sincerely. I am curious. With linear motion, we can see the effect of acceleration if it is pronounced but how would you see the acceleration represented by a = v^2/r?
wee willy…”Gravitational waves are fundamentally different from other waves like light or sound. They dont travel through a medium like air or water. Instead, they are ripples in spacetime itself.
Imagine spacetime as a fabric. When massive objects move around or accelerate in a very dramatic way, like colliding black holes or neutron stars, they distort this fabric. These distortions travel outward as waves, kind of like ripples on a pond when you throw a stone in”.
***
Only a complete blithering ijit would think like this. There is no such thig as spacetime and you won’t find a proof of it anywhere. All you can do is imagine spacetime as a fabric since there is nothing about it that is real.
This type of thinking is a product of someone who cannot grasp reality and is mislead by gobbeldy gook he was taught at a university comprised of blithering ijits.
There are actually people teaching this nonsense at universities, who clearly cannot think for themselves. I was lucky enough to have a physics prof who could think for himself. When the notion of the non-existence of time was forming in my mind and I asked this prof outright if time existed, he did not hesitate. He stated that time was invented by humans to keep tract of change.
That is blatant obvious to me now but here we are in a forum based on science with posters arguing that time does exist as a real phenomenon. Where is it? If it exists as a real phenomenon, point it out. All I get in reply to such a request is allegations about an arrow of time and/or the change of position of physical objects, which require a force, not time.
Why is it that a normal, down to earth prof at a Canadian university understood that about time, yet people like Einstein and his groupies failed to understand it? What Einstein has done is undo all the great work of Newton and set us back at least a 100 years in physics. At last he did that for his groupies but for me, Newton is still the man.
I predict that in the not too distant future, Einstein will be regarded as a fuhl and all those who blindly followed his heresy will be regarded as even bigger fuhls
“If the Moon was sitting still, then your large number would apply.”
Are you suggesting gravity doesn’t apply to moving objects?
“With a = v^2/r, why should there be a straight exponential relationship between a and v? ”
This is not an exponential relationship. 2^v is exponential; v^2 is quadratic. And 1/r is an inverse relationship.
“Someone erred grossly when they claimed a change in vector direction is an acceleration. ”
No. You erred grossly. This is EXACTLY what acceleration has always been. Circular motion has a force toward the center and an acceleration toward the center.
“Therefore the magnitude of each vector is that unit vector multiplied by the scalar quantity.”
Not quite. The magnitude of each vector COMPONENT is that unit vector multiplied by the scalar quantity.
Every physics textbook says exactly this. If this is not what you believe, then you are not doing physics.
“Can anyone show me a practical application of a = v^2/r.”
EVERY SINGLE OBJECT MOVING IN A CIRCLE.
Or in a parabola. Or pretty much any non-straight motion.
Any time there is a force on an object, there in an acceleration.
Any time that force is not straight forward or straight backwards, there is an acceleration sideways.
tim…”No. You erred grossly. This is EXACTLY what acceleration has always been. Circular motion has a force toward the center and an acceleration toward the center”.
***
You are confusing linear acceleration with curvilinear acceleration. If you have a vector representing a mass orbiting in a circle, and the mass velocity is constant, then its acceleration must be zero.
if you have a mass moving along a straight line, with a constant velocity, the acceleration is zero. Why should it be any different for a mass moving along an orbital path with a constant velocity?
Conversely, if you have a mass at rest, or performing constant velocity along a straight line, and you apply a force, the position of the mass changes exponentially with time. Can you say that is true for the Moon at any point in its orbit?
Acceleration implies an exponential change in motion per unit time. That’s why I claim the deviation of the Moon from its instantaneous linear motion is not acceleration but only a gradual constant motion. After all, if you have a vector representing constant velocity, and you break it into its component parts of tangential and radial elements, those elements are still velocity vectors and not acceleration vectors.
—
“Any time there is a force on an object, there in an acceleration”.
***
Not true. I can apply all the force I want using my own physical strength to a concrete wall and there will be zero acceleration. When Newton proposed f = ma he did so with an important stipulation. He said, “IF a force can move a mass…then f = ma”. There is an added stipulation that f is the sum of the forces. So, if I apply a force to a mass and get it moving, I can apply an opposite force to limit its motion so it cannot accelerate.
Anyone who has pushed a car to move it or get it started knows full well there is a limit to the velocity that can be attained. A some point, the carry will stop accelerating and run with a constant velocity no matter how much force we apply with our muscles.
It’s the same with the Moon. given the limited gravitational force at the Moon’s altitude.
Inertia plays a major role in acceleration, as witnessed by anyone trying to get a car moving. We can call the initial movement an acceleration of sorts but it soon becomes clear that no matter how much muscular force we apply, the car will simply go no faster. In other words, it has a constant velocity with force applied. That is a violation of f = ma, because if we remove the force, the car’s motion stops immediately, unless we are pushing it downhill.
I am claiming the same for the Moon. I regard it as a huge mass that gravity is trying to pull toward Earth, like a group of humans in a tug of war. However, at the altitude of the Moon, Earth’s gravity is not strong enough to accelerate a mass the size of the Moon, but merely divert it from its linear motion at a rate of about 5 metres per 8000 metres of lunar motion.
Such a rate of change is linear and cannot meet the definition of acceleration. Therefore a = v^2/r fails.
“I can apply all the force I want using my own physical strength to a concrete wall and there will be zero acceleration. ”
Yes, I should have specified NET force. Any time a NET force is applied, there is an acceleration.
There is no net force on the wall; it doesn’t accelerate. [The floor and/or other walls apply a force equal and opposite to my force.
The earth applies a net force on the moon; the moon accelerates.
“it has a constant velocity with force applied.”
Now you are making the same mistake. There is no NET force with a constant velocity. The various forms of friction equal your applied force.
You really need to pick up any freshman physics text and look somewhere around chapter 5 for circular motion. To deny acceleration for circular motion is to deny basically all of classical mechanics. You can throw out one part with of the whole of classical mechanics coming undone.
Tim,
I can’t find a description of the GHE in any physics text at all.
Do you think this is because such a description doesn’t exist? Or maybe because to disclose it would be a threat to national security?
Only joking, I know you are trying to divert attention away from the non-existent GHE by talking nonsense about anything and everything. Mind you, you have to get things right from time to time, by pure accident!
Even a broken clock is absolutely correct twice a day, which means on a 12 hour face, the hour will be correct 8.3% of the time. That’s about as ridiculous as many of the probabilities presented by GHE cultists. Numerically correct, and completely useless! As silly as adding fluxes from objects with different temperatures.
You don’t do anything like that, do you?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“I cant find a description of the GHE in any physics text at all.”
Which texts have you read?
Silly sock puppet!
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Which texts have you read?”
Why do you want to know? Why should I tell you? What sort of impotent and incompetent fool are you, anyway?
[laughing at dim-witted troll]
“a mass orbiting in a circle”
would be very unusual.
They are normally orbiting in a ellipse. (See Kepler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_orbit). Almost never in a circle.
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
Why do you want to know?
Because you are most probably lying.
What else should we expect from a silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Gordon,
To answer your question,
“if you have a mass moving along a straight line, with a constant velocity, the acceleration is zero. Why should it be any different for a mass moving along an orbital path with a constant velocity?”
Try Newton’s first law.
An object at rest or in motion will remain in that state unless a force is acting on it.
And remember, velocity contains a direction vector.
Something following an orbital path cannot have a constant velocity.
You are tripping over basic first year physics.
Gordon,
The Moon is falling towards the COG of the Earth, at a rate of about 0.00272 m/s2.
This seems about right, because the acceleration due to gravity on the Earth’s surface is about 9.8 m/s2, and the Moon is about 60 times further away from the Earth’s COG than the Earth’s surface. This would make the force of gravity affecting the Moon about 1/3600 th of the amount at the Earth’s surface, or 9.8 / 3600. Yea! About 0.00272!
So Newton was right, after all. Initially, Newton thought he was wrong, but his assumptions about the radius of the Earth were incorrect. The Frenchman, Jean Picard, did a bit of accurate triangulation, coming up with a figure very close to modern measurements (error of less than 0.5 %).
So each second, the Moon falls 0.00135 m or so, (s=1/2at^2), but travels about 1000 m (in a straight line, if your time measurement is a second), so it is now just as far above the Earth’s curved surface as it was a second ago! It has accelerated from rest (its previous position), but is no closer to the surface. Obviously, the Moon doesn’t move in jerky little one second segments, so Newton thought in terms of “infinitesimals”, tiny weeny miniscule segments, leading to “fluxions” and “fluents”.
The result was a smooth, non-jerky elliptical trajectory, which wobbles, jiggles, changes here and there in a chaotic manner, but does so smoothly! An infinitesimal amount, but infinitely often, so to speak.
All very interesting, but completely irrelevant in most ways. The Moon is what it is.
“The Moon is falling towards the COG of the Earth, at a rate of about 0.00272 m/s2”.
I agree in principle but not technically. If that was the case, the Moon could never recover the lost distance and would eventually spiral into the Earth. Acceleration in this case requires a finite change in vertical distance of a motion and that has to mean a change in orbital radius.
I have seen the lunar motion analyzed using equations like a = v^2/r, but I think it is wrong to apply such analysis to the lunar motion.
I prefer the word deviation to acceleration. A deviation in the case of an orbit can suggest a constant value and that is the case with the Moon. It’s deviation from its linear path is a constant value of about 5 vertical metres for every 8000 horizontal metres. An acceleration cannot be constant, by definition it represents an exponential change of distance covered per unit time.
A parameter we cannot ignore in this analysis is the Moon’s linear momentum. That’s what keeps the Moon in orbit. If it increases, the Moon moves to a higher altitude orbit and possibly out of orbit with enough momentum. If the Moon loses momentum it spirals into Earth.
We need that momentum to remain constant to prevent either of the cases above. That means the velocity must remain constant and a constant velocity implies zero acceleration.
People have argued that the Moon’s tangential velocity changes over an orbit but I don’t think it does. What changes to produce the slight eccentricity in the orbit is Earth’s gravitational force component. If you follow the gravitational force components around the orbit you can see the vector components change. I am theorizing that as the components change, momentum becomes more pronounced in certain parts of the orbit and carries the Moon farther in a given time.
“I am theorizing that …”
No need to theorize! Newton figured this out 400 years ago. Classical mechanics explains the moon’s orbit and agrees with observations to a ridiculous degree of accuracy.
Newton’s f = G.m1.m2/r^2 cannot explain the reason why the Moon remains in orbit. Neither can f = ma. Neither equations addresses the Moon’s linear momentum, the main reason the Moon remains in orbit. a = v^2/r certainly cannot explain it.
What Newton did was miraculous enough, explaining what Kepler could not do. Kepler had taken scads of data from astronomer Tycho Brahe and applied math to the data to get a relationship that explained orbiting bodies. However, he knew nothing about gravitational force, which Newton deduced.
f = G.m1.m2/r^2 only explains the relationship between masses in relation to gravitational force but it does not explain why the Moon remains in orbit. His cannon ball thought experiment was a lot closer and I think he elaborated on that in detail. I am sure that studying Principia in detail will reveal Newtons calculations on the matter but they are hardly mainstream classical mechanics.
a = v^2/r explains nothing. If you want to get into this, you need vector quantities to produce a resultant. However, the only vectors you have are linear velocity and and a radial acceleration which cannot really be classified as a true acceleration.
I have proposed a solution in the past. We can calculate a radial force on the Moon from Earth, but we need a tangential force to get a resultant. Since the Moon’s linear momentum represents a potential force if the Moon crashed head on with a significant object, we could convert the linear momentum into a potential force. That should present an on-going resultant force pointing in the direction of an instantaneous tangential force.
I prefer the more simplistic solution based on the curvature of the Earth. Since its curvature features a 5 metre vertical change per 8000 metres horizontal change, any body moving at a speed that allows gravity to bend it over that ratio will remain in orbit, just like Newton’s cannon ball.
“I have proposed a solution in the past. We can calculate a radial force on the Moon from Earth, but we need a tangential force to get a resultant.”
Why? No you don’t.
The radial acceleration adds a slight radial increment of velocity to the tangential velocity, vectorially, every second.
So imagine a very long tangential vector with a very tiny radial vector added to it. The resultant has a slight change in direction, each second!
These increments accumulate over time and curve the Moon’s velocity vector around the Earth.
No tangential force needed!
And consequently there is negligible torque due to gravity on the Moon (during a single orbit). And negligible effect on the Moon’s rotation during an orbit.
post one y GR…rlh[GR]Gravity acts faster than light.
[Richard]Wrong also. What speed do gravity waves travel at?
reply by RLH…Explain a gravity wave.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1660939
***
If you want to be flippant, that’s up to you. I am sure you don’t give a hoot what I think of you but I used to respect your analytical abilities related to statistics, I respected you in general. Now you are presenting a side of yourself that belies the abilities I came to respect.
In my post, I was comparing the speed at which gravity acts wrt to light and I referenced gravity waves in that context. A gravity wave is generally intended as a reference to a motion in a spacetime fabric, whatever that means, and it is intended to downplay gravitational force as a reality.
Ocean waves are not gravity waves per se, since gravity is only one factor in the types of waves produced. It is certainly a factor but does not help when referencing wave action that is produced by wind or the wave action produced when an oceanic river collides with a low continental shelf. The latter produces the immense waves used by surfers at competition.
If you have a mid-ocean condition, where the surface is placid with at best low-altitude wave action, and a strong wind appear, suddenly the ocean is whipped into a frenzy of waves. Gravity does not cause those waves, which can reach 100 metres in the worst case, it is another force causing them. So, calling them gravity waves is just plain stoopid.
Yes…gravity plays a role by attracting water molecules to a mass, but in all the time I studied this in geology courses, I never once heard those waves referred to as gravity waves.
We were discussing a reference to waves in spacetime which is an utter fabrication. They are a product of Einstein’s imagination presented in thought experiments with absolutely no evidence that spacetime exists as a real, material phenomenon.
> in all the time I studied this in geology courses, I never once heard those waves referred to as gravity waves.
🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌
🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here is one definition.
https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/Miscellaneous/gravity_wave/gravity_wave.html
RLH,
From your link –
“Gravity waves aren’t gravitational waves.”
True, which makes Willard’s “Gravity waves are ripples in the fabric of spacetime itself, . . .” look pretty silly, doesn’t it?
Just more semantics, giving GHE cultists the excuse “I really meant the other one, unless I didn’t.” Ask a fanatical GHE cultist to actually describe their GHE, and you’ll see them quickly find a reason to talk about something else!
At least if someone can describe something clearly, it generally shows that there is a chance they are prepared to defend their description, and propose some testable hypothesis.
But alas, no description of the GHE is to be found anywhere. Maybe you would like to try?
Please distinguish between gravity waves and gravitational waves.
RLH,
You wrote –
“Please distinguish between gravity waves and gravitational waves.”
Don’t you read the authorities you appeal to? Jeez, that’s a bit rude – providing a link and then asking me to explain it to you!
Don’t blame me if you can’t be bothered to read the things to which you link!
Carry on.
“gravity waves and gravitational waves” are 2 different things (though they sound similar). I read what I wrote. Don’t you?
RLH,
You wrote –
“Here is one definition.”, and provided a link, which you don’t appear to have read.
I quoted from your link “Gravity waves arent gravitational waves.”. You can look up the difference – from your own link!
You also wrote –
“Please distinguish between gravity waves and gravitational waves.”
Go on, tell me you don’t know the difference!
Trolling much?
“Gravity waves aren’t gravitational waves”
“Please distinguish between gravity waves and gravitational waves.”
Don’t read much do you?
“Here is one definition” of gravity waves.
richard…thanks for the clarification. These days we are being inundated with modern re-definitions that make little sense, as the article notes.
I don’t know if this is global but here in Canada we are suddenly being drowned in ‘atmospheric rivers’. I had never heard that term till recently, after the climate change propaganda got into gear. Prior to that on the West Coast of Canada we had a friendlier term, ‘Pineapple Express’.
We used to laugh off the super rainstorms and endured them as part of the normal climate. Now they are propagandized as climate change, hence the more sinister atmospheric river term, a dumb metaphor.
If we can’t laugh at natural variability, taking it in stride, and need to become hysterical about natural forces, we are lost as a species.
Alarmists try to tell us here that such rainstorms are due to climate change. I remember as a child playing soccer, following and during such a storm, in fields covered with so much water that more of the field was covered with an inch or more of water than was not. When you kicked a ball, it would stall in a small lake and we all rushed into the water with glee to boot it out.
Kudos to the referees and coaches who would come out to allow us to play. These days, they close the park down during December and January to save the parks, they claim. Load of wusses.
There were no parents waiting for us in warm cars following the match. We either walked home soaking wet, or took the bus. Same with paper routes. We went out in the elements, alone, rain or snow, with out bikes loaded with newspapers, in the dark, at 5am.
“I {incorrectly} referenced gravity waves in that context.”
RLH,
You wrote –
“Gravity waves arent gravitational waves
Please distinguish between gravity waves and gravitational waves.
Dont read much do you?”
You are making no sense at all. Please stop trolling.
Do you think that gravity waves are gravitational waves?
RLH,
You ask a particularly stupid gotcha –
“Do you think that gravity waves are gravitational waves”
Why do you ask? Are you appealing to my authority? Are you annoyed because I pointed out that you didn’t appear to have read the link you posted – trying to appear clever?
Do you really care what I think, or are you just trying to save face?
Questions, questions. You don’t have any good answers, do you?
By the way, how are you going with describing the non-existent GHE?
richard…moot point, neither are caused by gravity. If push comes to shove I’ll take ocean waves as gravity waves but the spacetime kind don’t exist.
I think it is supreme arrogance for physicists to replace gravity as a force, due to mass, with a cockamamey theory that gravity is not a force but a spacetime anomaly. The gravity waves, or gravitational, if you like, is a purely fictitious force that comes from the minds of demented scientists.
I simply asked if you think that gravity waves are gravitational waves?
RLH,
You ask a particularly stupid gotcha
“Do you think that gravity waves are gravitational waves”
Why do you ask? Are you appealing to my authority? Are you annoyed because I pointed out that you didnt appear to have read the link you posted trying to appear clever?
Do you really care what I think, or are you just trying to save face?
Questions, questions. You dont have any good answers, do you?
By the way, how are you going with describing the non-existent GHE?
Just asking the same pointless question again makes you look stupid.
Ask again, if you are a really slow learner.
“Why do you ask?”
Because I want to know what you believe in.
“Because I want to know what you believe in.”
Why should I care about your wants? Do you care about mine?
I get the distinct impression that all you want is an argument, and an opportunity to indulge in some pointless trolling.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
“Because I want to know what you believe in.”
Asking for your beliefs is somehow wrong!
Elon Musks Latest Mars Pitch Has Potential
SpaceX has made significant progress toward what once seemed an unattainable goal.
https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-mars-spacex-update/
Plans can change.
If Moon has billions of tons of mineable water {and CO2}.
And I think Venus orbit is the most habitable place.
In terms of Mars plans, if use Venus orbit, instead of going to Mars every 2.1 years, one go to Mars on average about once a year. Or double earth launches to Mars. And double Mars launches to Earth.
And Martians could sell Mars water to Venus orbit.
But both Mars and Venus orbit needs artificial gravity, and we haven’t done that, yet.
If artificial gravity, doesn’t “work”, then Venus planetary surface could be only habitable planet.
And if you have to live in sky of Venus, than going to need to use Nuclear Orions.
It was a cold morning across southeastern Australia as you’d expect after the passage of an autumn cold front, with subzero readings in three states.
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news-thumbnail/2954713
Thanks for the weather report. I look forward to the next one.
Several tens of centimeters of fresh snow in the Alps.
https://www.skiinfo.pl/valais/saas-fee/kamerki
Current temperatures in the north.
https://i.ibb.co/n8gDtmB/ventusky-temperature-5cm-20240410t0400.jpg
Greenland, at nearly -50C, where the ice is allegedly melting fast. Pretty soon we’ll be able to farm and sun-bathe in Greenland in April. [/Sarc off]
Meltwater from the Ural Mountains has spread the dykes in the upper reaches of the Ural River.
Willard, trolling as usual, posed a gotcha. I asked why he wanted to know. Here’s his response –
“Mike Flynn,
You ask
“Why do you want to know?”
Because you are most probably lying.
What else should we expect from a silly sock puppet?
Cheers.”
Well, Willard, how stupid would you be if you expected a liar to tell you the truth? Do you often appeal to the authority of liars? Why would you assume that a liar would tell you the truth, after lying the first time?
Are you quite mad?
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“how stupid would you be if you expected a liar to tell you the truth”
What makes you think anybody should expect you to tell the truth, silly sock puppet?
Silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner wastes more of his time.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”Gravitational waves are fundamentally different from other waves like light or sound. They dont travel through a medium like air or water. Instead, they are ripples in spacetime itself.
Imagine spacetime as a fabric. When massive objects move around or accelerate in a very dramatic way, like colliding black holes or neutron stars, they distort this fabric. These distortions travel outward as waves, kind of like ripples on a pond when you throw a stone in”.
***
Proof that wee willy will accept any garbage thrown his way as science. Perhaps ww could offer an explanation for this fabric made of space and time?
Consider ww going down to the local fabric shop and asking for a bag of space and a container of time and some knitting needles so he can knit himself a spacetime fabric.
About the same as ww going to a local CO2 distributor and asking for exactly 0.04% CO2 for his translucent container, which he plans to install in his home to heat it.
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner unsportingly tries to make himself relevant.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Has anyone calculated where temps should be had the pause not happened? If temps had paced aco2 emissions instead of natural variability.
darwin…that presumes there was a pause. The notion of a pause is that temperatures keep rising due to anthropogenic forces. It was the IPCC who branded the flat tend from 1998 – 2012 as a pause. I disagree, there is no evidence that a trace gas is warming the atmosphere.
Syun Akasofu calculated that the planet should be warming at about 0.5C/century from the little Ice Age but I doubt that will help your calculations.
That’s impossible to answer, Darwin.
Earlier, Tim Folkerts wrote –
“Light has no charge. Therefore the ‘immense electromagnetic field’ has no effect on uncharged light.”
Not quite correct. EM distorts spacetime, as it turns out. Distortions of spacetime cause gravity. Gravity affects light, which has no rest mass at all, but is still affected by gravity, as Einstein predicted. Mind you, the Theory of General Relativity is still a theory, and may be incomplete or wrong.
So EM seems to affect light (and everything else). I’m not the first to say that everything affects everything else, and no doubt won’t be the last.
As Richard Feynman said “I’m not going to simplify it, I’m going to tell you what it really is like, and I hope you accept nature as she is – ABSURD.
You don’t like it? Go find another Universe!”
The presence of CO2 makes nothing hotter in and of itself. There is no GHE. Not in this universe, anyway.
I was describing classical EM theory. There, F = qE + qvxB is correct and EM fields have no effect on chargeless EM waves (ie photons).
The point was that relativity is required to understand the bending of light. The bending is primarily due to mass, although — yes — energy in the form of photons could have a minor impact.
Tim,
Classical EM theory is all well and good, it’s just wrong, that’s all.
As you say “The point was that relativity is required to understand the bending of light. The bending is primarily due to mass, although yes energy in the form of photons could have a minor impact.”
Classical EM theory is non-relativistic, so I cannot quite understand why you stick with it when you admit it doesnt work.
As to the energy from photons having a “minor impact”, this is a common thought expressed by people who don’t want to accept the chaotic nature of the universe. There is no minimum change to initial conditions which may result in unpredictable outcomes of a fully deterministic chaotic system.
For example, the atmosphere. The indeterminate position and momentum of a single photon determines the future precisely. You just cannot predict what that future is, because the approximate present does not determine the approximate future, no matter how fervently we wish it to be so. Einstein refused to accept the uncertainty principle, believing that “God does not play at dice.”
Still no GHE, no matter what anybody prays for. You can’t even describe the GHE in any meaningful way, can you?
Another upper low over California with a patch of cold and Arctic air in the northeastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/0Z26mm2/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f072.png
Valleys in Southern California are in bloom.
Tell me you’re not an engineer without saying you’re not an engineer.
“I took a semester course in vector calculus, preceded by a semester course in linear algebra, and I remember clearly how vectors are added and multiplied.”
Vector calculus is concerned with the study of vector-valued functions, which are functions that map a set of real numbers (usually representing coordinates) to vectors in a vector space. It encompasses various mathematical operations and concepts applied to vector fields, such as differentiation, integration, and theorems like the divergence theorem, Stokes’ theorem, and Green’s theorem. These tools are extensively used in physics, engineering, and other fields to describe quantities with both magnitude and direction, such as force fields, fluid flow, and electromagnetic fields.
The basic operations of vector addition and multiplication are typically introduced at a lower level than vector calculus. These fundamental operations are commonly taught in introductory courses; on the other hand, vector calculus is a more advanced branch of mathematics that builds upon these basic concepts to study the behavior of vector-valued functions and their derivatives and integrals in multiple dimensions.
Yes Ark, vector analysis is one of the ways we know radiative fluxes do not simply add. And that means the GHE is bogus, including the bogus “EEI”. We also know Moon does not spin.
Consequently, we shouldn’t expect anymore nonsense from your cult.
Except your cult can’t learn….
A,
You wrote –
“vector calculus is a more advanced branch of mathematics that builds upon these basic concepts to study the behavior of vector-valued functions and their derivatives and integrals in multiple dimensions.”
Awesome. Do you have a point, or are you just trying to appear intelligent?
You see, you cannot even describe the GHE, so you have to resort to diversions to obscure the fact that fanatical GHE cultists make stupid assumptions like “energy out must equal energy in”.
The fact that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years makes a mockery of that particular inane statement. Thinking that radiative fluxes from objects of different temperatures can be meaningfully added, subtracted, and so on, is about as silly as saying that temperatures can be added!
And yet, “climate scientists” do it all the time! For example, claiming an “energy imbalance” measured in W/m2 equates to temperature in degrees Celsius! Even you would agree with the silliness of something like that, which would make you smarter than the World Meteorological Organisation, or some fanatical GHE cultist who writes nonsense for them!
Go on, try and use vector calculus to prove me wrong, if you think it relevant.
I never will a post of Robertson some years ago, starting with:
” As I took a year in astronomy, … ”
OMG.
Should read:
” I never will forget a post … “
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
In the study of engineering at my university, anyway, you are offered electives to take on top of core courses. There is normally an Arts elective and Science elective. For the science elective I selected courses like geology and astronomy, which also helped me become a rock star.
I get the drift of Binny’s sarcasm but the course I took in astronomy was a good course for understanding basic astronomy. It helped kill my illusions about space, being nothing like the sci-fi programs about space. It also supplied humour in the early stages hen far too many students showed up for the first class, most of them Arts fairies who thought it was a course in astrology.
I recall studying black hole theory in which black holes are posited as being one end-result of a star burning out, so to speak. When the star depletes its fuel, it can blow up as a supernova, collapse into a neutron star, or continue to collapse into a black hole of super dense something or other.
I was too busy to challenge the theory at the time but since, it has come to me that neutrons left over from helium depletion would hardly join together in a mass. Why should they? And if they did, why would they collapse further into a super dense mass?
These days, for no apparent reason, or with no evidence to support the theory, black holes have somehow become related to Einstein’s nonsense about spacetime. The theory was ludicrous in the first place and now it is even more ludicrous, as being related to an ijiotic theory re spacetime.
ark…”Vector calculus is concerned with the study of vector-valued functions, which are functions that map a set of real numbers (usually representing coordinates) to vectors in a vector space”.
***
Trust a mathematician to obfuscate a simple definition. I already told you what vector calculus is about, adding and multiplying vector quantities.
The bit about mapping real numbers to vectors in a vector space takes the obfuscation to a new level. They throw in the phrase “usually representing coordinates” but mathematicians would take such a sensible statement and deem it far too simple and straightforward. They can’t help themselves, they need to complicate a definition to the point even they cannot explain it.
Mapping a real number is nothing more than taking a real number on the x axis and associating with a number along the y-axis. The y number is called a function of x. So, for a parabola centred about the y-axis, with the u-shape up the way, the function f(x) = y = x^2.
We can tell immediately that when x = 0, y = 0. Also, since x is squared, for each value of x, positive and negative, there is a corresponding value of y. As x increases, the function, y, creates a parabolic shape either side of the y axis.
So, they are telling us vector calculus is about points in the x,y plane that have magnitude and direction. Naturally, those points can also be moving with variable velocity and acceleration, therefore the scalar quantities associated with the vectors can be differential quantities.
That’s all it is about from an engineering perspective. If you have a field that can be represented by vectors, and the field has some kind of order that can be described by a continuous function, vector calculus lays down rules about manipulating the vectors re addition and multiplication, even if the scalars are differentials.
Gordon Robertson, welcome to my seminar. The first lesson is free.
Vector arithmetic primarily deals with basic operations involving vectors, such as addition, subtraction, scalar multiplication, and finding the magnitude and direction of vectors.
Vector calculus, also known as vector analysis, extends the concepts of calculus to vector fields, which are functions. It deals with operations on vector fields, such as differentiation (gradient, divergence, curl) and integration (line integrals, surface integrals, volume integrals).
“Gordon Robertson, welcome to my seminar. The first lesson is free.”
Arkady, please stop trolling.
There is no course at any university called vector arithmetic. It is called vector calculus, and is nothing more than a means of adding and multiplying vectors.
The semester course I took before it was called linear algebra. About 2/3rds the way through the course, a bleary eyed engineer at the front of the class shot up his hand. The prof, a great guy who made up a set of immaculate lecture notes for each lecture, asked what he wanted. The engineer had a simple question, “what are we doing”? The prof asked what he meant, at that particular moment or in the entire course. The guy said, ‘the entire course’. The prof smiled and asked if anyone else felt the same way. We all shot up our hands.
So, the prof patiently explained that we were were not supposed to understand what was going on, that all we needed to do was learn the rules of solving multiple equations. He assured us that, as we went along, it would all be revealed to us.
Not once in the course, or in our text book, was the word vector mentioned. Britannica, once a pearl of wisdom, has sunk so low these days that they cannot even explain linear algebra. They claim it’s about vectors, which is bs. Some people insist on called any set of numbers a vector if it can be created in 3-space. However, as an engineer I object to such malarkey. If it doesn’t have an arrow, and a tail, and represent something real like a force, it’s not a vector.
Turns out that linear algebra was about learning the rules related to solving simultaneous equations. Anyone who studied high school math knows how to solve basic simultaneous equations using cancellation of like terms. However, things begin to get hairy when the number of equations and the number of elements in an equation increase significantly. Equations are not limited to 2- and 3-space, they can extend to n-space.
You want to know if the equations have a common solution. That’s part of what you learn in linear algebra, if the equations have a solution at all.
I think it is the same for vector calculus. The word ‘calculus’ suggests that we are applying calculus to vector addition and multiplication, and that’s what we did eventually, Rather than using simple scalars with vectors, we began using differentials so we had to learn how to add and multiply differentials.
If you have a vector, or a vector field, that is constantly changing its scalars and directions, you need to use differential calculus. But you can’t just add differentials pell mell. There are rules and we were learning the rules.
If you have a differential like dx/dx, you know it equals 1. There are similar identities you can use when the differential is accompanied by scalar quantities like a number, an exponential or a trig value like cos or sin.
I am not arguing that you can’t call the simpler vector addition and multiplication arithmetic, all I know is that I left arithmetic behind in high school and encountered only calculus at university. Another thing, by the time I left 2nd year calculus (triple integrals), I considered myself an expert in arithmetic, geometry, and trig. You use them all so much and so regularly in calculus you can do them in your sleep.
Robertson
You are simply way, way, way too dumb, too ignorant and too inexperienced to understand what Warmista Ivanovich told you.
I have explained many times on this blog that you never have been an engineer in any identifiable discipline.
And your lengthy, stoopid, utterly superficial posts above are the umpteenth proof of my explanations.
Here is what any REAL engineer understands under ‘vector calculus’:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_calculus
This has nothing in common with the trivial stuff you are telling about.
Your butt-kissing friend-in-denial Flynnson is by the way exactly as ignorant as you are.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Your butt-kissing friend-in-denial Flynnson is by the way exactly as ignorant as you are.”
Very erudite of you, I’m sure. A grand demonstration of your vast intellect, do you think?
Have you managed a non-nonsensical description of the GHE, yet? You might recollect that you referred to your initial description as “nonsense” (I agree, of course), but you haven’t managed a better GHE description since then, have you?
Your trolling attempts have not improved, either. Maybe others hold different opinions, and consider you a troll par excellence. What do you think?
Carry on.
Not sure where else to post this.
News story saying ‘30% of NOAA temperature stations are ghost stations that no longer exists.”
Source: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hidden-behind-climate-policies-data-nonexistent-temperature-stations
Is NOAA faking it? One would assume NOAA and U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) would add more data points for better data. While “interpellation” is a high school subject, even a high schooler knows not to take a temperature reading in New York and one from California to “Interrelate” the temperature in Kansas. Yes that is a wild example. However when measuring stations are hundreds of miles away from “the measured spot” then faith wains in the reading’s validity. It might be good to add stations – on in the city and one 15 miles away in a rural section.
What is embarrassing is “Weather Underground” has an order of magnitude more stations – though they are not calibrated and may be in bad spots like near the HVAC machinery.
Just know the story came out. People are asking questions.
“One would assume NOAA and U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) would add more data points for better data. ”
More data points improve the uncertainty in the averages, but only up to a certain point.
There is also an uncertainty due to random variation in the data.
As you increase sample size the uncertainty in the averages decreases until it matches the uncertainty due to random variation.
Beyond that point increasing the sample size does not improve the uncertainty, so there’s no point adding extra stations.
If you do the maths, you can get a global average to the best achievable uncertainty of +/- 0.6C using 1500 stations.
Sorry, 0.06C.
“As you increase sample size the uncertainty in the averages decreases until it matches the uncertainty due to random variation.”
When you average measurements in science, you are doing so on the premise of comparable and repeatable measurements. However, they are not; we know the USHCN is, for the most part, an unstandardized network, and we know several adjustments have been attempted the “well-known” biases.
What happens when you average two measurements together: one where the temperature was recorded at a time when a colony of wasps started to construct its nest, and another measurement where the wasp nest was fully constructed? Both processes took place close to the sensor where air temperature is recorded.
*The process took*
ent…I guess you don’t study much logic in biology. How can anyone determine the temperature of an area when there is only 1 thermometer to cover 100,000 km^2? I know you have a penchant for dealing in trivia but this is taking it way too far.
NOAA has only 4 thermometers to cover California, all of them near the ocean and none in the Sierras. There is only one thermometer covering the entire Canadian Arctic and it is located in the warmest part of that area at Eureka.
Binny will be along shortly, with his brother in denial Barry, with a long list of GHCN station, but in his immense denial he refuses to accept what NOAA has revealed, that they have chopped over 90% of GHCN station data since 1990. They use less than 1500 stations globally.
Gavin Schmidt, now head of NASA GISS offered a clue as to why. He revealed a while back that GISS lacks the resources to go through 100,000 stations monthly.
I see it another way. NOAA and GISS are blatant climate alarmists sanctioned by the US government to create fake news about climate change. They have no interest in offering an accurate global temperature database, only in propping up the GHE and anthropogenic lie.
I mean, no reputable outfits would claim 2014 as the hottest year ever while carefully hiding in the small print that what they are claiming is referring to a 48% likelihood they are telling the truth. That makes GISS bigger liars since they offered only a 38% likelihood they were telling the truth.
techno…there is no doubt that NOAA and NASA GISS have been fudging surface temperatures for a long time. Tony Heller has revealed that in detail and here is your proof re the data points…
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time”.
Alarmists go ballistic when I post this info, wallowing in their denial.
NOAA have been using fake stations, synthesized using climate models, in which they interpolate station temperatures up to 1200 km apart to synthesize fake stations. Then they homogenize the data, including fake station, to produce temperature data for larger areas. Almost the entire ocean is fudged data.
If you want a full analysis of the debauchery, look here…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
This is just gisstemp…look carefully through the site and he covers it all. Also, look up articles and videos by Tony Heller.
CRN is the pristine site capable of delivering very accurate in-suite measurements, but nClimDiv is still being updated and displayed monthly.
Maybe so, but the link to which I posted by NOAA claims they use less than 1500 stations to get their global averages.
Binny has called them liars because the link dates back to 2015 or so.
The CRN anomalies are calculated from the same baseline as the old network is. Because of this, uncertainty from the old network is propagated into the anomalies. The number of stations dropped from the USHCN have estimated data from their neighbor stations through the pairwise homogenization algorithm, which is really propagating uncertainty from that station’s record into the new estimated record. So, as the number of stations with estimated data increases, the more fake the anomalies get. You are right to call it fraud.
[WALTER R. HOGLE] You are right to call it fraud.
[ALSO WALTER R. HOGLE] I don’t, by any means, claim to be an expert.
Willard,
You need to be wary of “experts”.
As Feynman said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”. I agree – smart fellow, Feynman.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You don’t need to be an expert to understand this.
You’re taking measurements over a series of time, expecting to smooth out variations with long-term averaging. For that to happen, the conditions of consistency and repeatability must be maintained.
If, during a time interval, a tree falls near the station, it systematically no longer provides the shade variations it did prior to the fall. The distribution of measured parameters has changed, and more sunlight now regularly warms the microclimate where the station continues to record. There are other trees nearby to provide some level of shade, but the total amount isn’t as much.
When you average the measurements from this time interval with the previous time interval, the noise is amplified rather than the variations being smoothed. This uncertainty is propagated to a neighboring station during the pairwise homogenization process, and the grid in which the corrected station is located now spreads that uncertainty to the overall grid average.
The pairwise homogenization process turned a cooling trend in the raw USHCN data with warmer 1930s and 1940s into a warming trend with a colder Dust Bowl than the present.
Mike Flynn,
You’re a silly sock puppet who denies the greenhouse effect. Puffman also denies the greenhouse effect. Mr. Asshat denies the greenhouse effect. Graham D. Warner denies the greenhouse effect.
Do you believe that Walter R. Hogle denies the greenhouse effect?
Cheers.
*the corrected station in the grid*
> The pairwise homogenization process turned a cooling trend in the raw USHCN data with warmer 1930s
False:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/hausfather-etal2013.pdf
Walter R. Hogle is a whiny bitch.
That’s not an issue related to the scenario I described.
They don’t know how those specific conditions have affected the measurements over time. Urban and rural areas have changed populations, and likely infrastructure has changed with them. Uncertainty will propagate in a similar way to what I described with my example.
The overall homogenization process was a large contributor to the ending result, which was a cooling of the past and a warming of the present.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
Walter R. Hogle is a natural.
That’s not just saying stuff. You don’t even know what you’re trying to challenge.
Walter R. Hogle is indeed just saying stuff.
Ignorance is infinite, and his appeals to it doubly so.
“Step 3 Saying Stuff.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
TechnoCaveman
If USHCN is as bad as Mr Shewchuck claims: why then did UAH’s John Chrsity use USHCN data to produce this US statistics at the end of 2020?
https://web.archive.org/web/20210112005636/https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Record-Temperatures-in-the-United-States.pdf
*
USHCN still exists but isn’t used since years anymore.
It has been replaced by
– USCRN, the Climate Reference Network, with nearly 140 pristine stations in the US
– GHCN V4 which is derived out of GHCN daily, has over 27,000 stations worldwide and is used by NOAA, GISS and… recently by Roy Spencer and John Christy for their UHI statistics, which they presented last year on this blog.
*
Feel free to replicate doubts of others if you like; but what about asking Spencer and Christy why they used USHCN and GHCN V4, if both sources are that bad?
Maybe these two might inform you better?
Perhaps they utilized it to make a specific point at the time without endorsing it themselves.
Perhaps that doesn’t address Binny’s point.
TechnoCaveman
Who credulously believes Robertson’s lies about weather stations 100% deserves them.
I’m sad of replying to such endless lies all the time he posts them.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Monty Python’s John Cleese: Cancel the censors!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfDBTpAzV4U
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m^2 (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)^1/4 /4σ ]^1/4
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)^1/4 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4 ]^1/4 =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2(150*1*1)^1/4 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4 ]^1/4 =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )^1/4 =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We’ve been over the flaws in this analysis before, Christos.
You have that the abs.orbed solar is 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2. Then to average over the whole globe, day and night, we divide by 4. That gives
0,47(1-0,306)1.361/4 W/m^2 = 111 W/m^2
But this obviously cannot be correct since the outgoing LW radiation is measured to be 240 W/m^2 on average.
Your input abs.orbed solar is way way way too small compared to the output OLR.
Your Earth would be rapidly cooling!
Christos, has no answers, thus is pretending this does not matter.
It seems that still no one on the blog can explain the huge difference between gravity waves and gravitational waves – in fact, they don’t have anything in common.
*
By the way, just a little hint: gravitational waves are by no means an invention of Albert Einstein.
They were predicted in 1893 already, by a rather unknown British genius named Oliver Heaviside, who understood Maxwell’s equations better than anyone else, and hence logically has been the very first scientist having discovered the strong analogy between gravity and electromagnetism, thus giving us a link between Newton’s and Maxwell’s working fields.
*
A comprehensive, modern rewriting of Heaviside’s paper was made by the physicist Oleg D. Jefimenko:
A Gravitational and Electromagnetic analogy
Oliver Heaviside
https://sergf.ru/Heavisid.htm
“The word “gravity” in the word gravity wave can make the term more confusing than it really is. It has little to do with having a special relationship with gravity. ALL air motions are influences by gravity. Once the word gravity is eliminated, all that is left is the word wave. Air can have one of two motions, which are either STRAIGHT or WAVE. These waves can be vertical or horizontal. When you look at a 500-millibar chart with the troughs and ridges you are looking at horizontal waves (waves on a more or less horizontal plane).
A gravity wave is a vertical wave. The best example I can think of in describing what a gravity wave looks like is to think of a rock being thrown into a pond. Ripples or circles migrate from the point the rock hits the water. An up and down motion is created. With increasing distance from the point where the rock hit the water, the waves becomes less defined (the waves are dampening).
Now let’s look at what a gravity wave is in the atmosphere. To start a gravity wave, a TRIGGER mechanism must cause the air to be displaced in the vertical. Examples of trigger mechanisms that produce gravity waves are mountains and thunderstorm updrafts. To generate a gravity wave, the air must be forced to rise in STABLE air. Why? Because if air rises in unstable air it will continue to rise and will NOT create a wave pattern. If air is forced to rise up in stable air, the natural tendency will be for the air to sink back down over time (usually because the parcel forced to rise is colder than the environment). The momentum of the air imparted by the trigger mechanism will force the parcel to rise and the stability of the atmosphere will force the parcel of air to sink after it rises (you have now undergone the first steps into creating a wave).”
https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/Miscellaneous/gravity_wave/gravity_wave.html
At some point in time, the Chinese wanted to make 1 km tall stick artificial gravity spacestation.
It’s spin would have made gravitational waves.
The US President, Theodore Roosevelt, once said “speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far”.
If China is speaking softly, and carrying a 1 km long stick, it will go very, very far!
[the Devil made me do it]
When a rock is dropped in water, it is the gravitational force of the rock producing the waves, not gravity itself. Gravity serves to limit the amplitude of the waves and to dissipate the amplitude as the wave spreads out. However, it is the rock that causes the waves, causing them to propagate sideways.
“However, it is the rock that causes the waves, causing them to propagate sideways.”
No one is saying anything, different. But, most universe’s mass is not “rock”.
But if you just had two large rocks orbiting, they cause gravity waves. [As they orbit around their single barycenter].
Though measuring it with an instrument {though not observing it’s effect upon 3rd rock [or spacecraft} added to it- being this “instrument”] is difficult.
So the instrument assumes gravitation waves effect space/time- and that is what you disagree about.
Anyhow such instruments have been made, and they seem to be measuring “something”.
As we become a spacefaring civilization {not confined to a single rock] such instruments will improve.
“It seems that still no one on the blog can explain the huge difference between gravity waves and gravitational waves in fact, they dont have anything in common.”
That includes you, does it?
Gee, and I thought people could use the internet.
From Wikipedia –
“Gravitational waves are sometimes called gravity waves, but gravity waves typically refer to displacement waves in fluids.”
According to Wikipedia, gravitational waves “are sometimes called gravity waves”, but don’t specify by whom. To further complicate issues, the “speed of gravity” usually refers to gravitational waves (sometimes called gravity waves, of course).
All quite irrelevant – nobody on the blog can even describe the GHE! Pretending to explain something which cannot even be described, is an exercise in futility.
Carry on about the semantics of gravity, gravity waves, gravitational waves to your hearts’s content.
Bindidork claims he knows something while all he does is throwing famous scientists names , its claiming is is smart because he ate alamoun’s zshit
Not only that, the scientist’s name he is throwing about, knew very little about gravity.
The paper you linked to by Heavyside is largely nonsense and here’s why…
1)In 1893, when the paper was written, the electron had not yet been invented. He refers to electrification without knowing what electricity is all about, electron/charge flow.
Im not knocking the guy, simply pointing out he had nothing to go on re gravity or EM.
2)It would be another 20 years before Bohr equated the electron to production of electromagnetic energy. Hence, the argument of Heavyside, and even Maxwell, were based on unknowns. However, gravitational theory re forces had already been established by Newton. Heavyside is trying to equate gravity to EM without understand EM.
BTW, Maxwell’s equation still apply to EM as related to current induced magnetic fields, and his projections about light showed great insight. Still, he knew nothing about electromagnet energy produced by electrons in atoms. HE would not have been privy to even the most basic atomic theory we take for granted today.
Even today, no one has discovered the root cause of gravity. It cannot be related to EM simply because it carries no charge (no electric field) and it dos not affect a compass needle (no magnetic field). Yet it dissipates in the same manner re the inverse square law.
One thing is for sure, gravity has nothing to do with imaginary space and time fields, which have no existence.
“1)In 1893, when the paper was written, the electron had not yet been invented”.
Should obviously read…”1)In 1893, when the paper was written, the electron had not yet been discovered.
Binny,
More analogies!
At least Heaviside was consistent –
“For this, also, there is a well-known gastronomical analogy.”
Later on, he writes –
“lead me to point out now some of the consequences of the modified law which arises when we assume that the ether is the working agent in gravitational effects, and that it propagates disturbances at speed v in the manner supposed in my former article.”
Some would dispute the assumption “that the ether is the working agent”, but no matter.
Heaviside also writes –
“If they are observable, then, if existent, they should turn up, but if non-existent then the speed of gravity should be greater. [than the speed of light].
However, a lack of evidence does not necessarily mean absence of lack. An old speculation.
“…they dont have anything in common”.
***
They do have something in common, neither one exists. Calling a wave in the ocean a gravity wave is along the lines of calling excess moisture in the atmosphere a river. Gravity obviously plays a part but some other force produces the waves.
The other type of non-wave is the one based on the fiction of spacetime. Such waves are strictly imaginary.
As always: a load of redundant, irrelevant blathering stuff by the usual pseudo-skeptical boys.
The only funny moment was dachshund Eben’s teethless ankle-biting.
It’s even funnier how you spell teethless
Interestingly he came out with a speed for gravitational waves 1/1000 of the speed of light. Whereas Einstein and experiment found it to be equal to the speed of light.
“Einstein and experiment found it to be equal to the speed of light”
Now apply that to Newtonian calculations about orbits.
Nate,
Einstein speculated at one time that gravitational waves would exist. Their existence and speed have not been confirmed by experiment. Observations appear to confirm their existence, but are not definitive yet.
On the other hand, Einstein also claimed that gravitational waves do not exist –
“In a 1936 manuscript submitted to the Physical Review, Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen famously claimed that gravitational waves do not exist.” – Springer Link, but others claim that Einstein was mistaken.
Speculation and assumptions are all well and good, but reproducible experiment sorts out fact from fantasy.
Maybe you would be better employed concentrating on describing the GHE. Or do you now accept that describing the GHE is impossible?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Springer Link”
Are you referring to the famous Dutch physicist?
“Are you referring to the famous Dutch physicist?”
You tell me.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“You tell me”
Is that an order?
Carry on looking like a silly sock puppet.
“Carry on looking like a silly sock puppet.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
ren…”Valleys in Southern California are in bloom”.
***
That means the peyote harvest will be coming soon, We’ll have to keep an eye on gb to see if he starts expounding more on Mars. Or counting protons in the solar wind. ☺ ☺ 🦁
It’s been wet. And cold. But next week it’s not going to get colder than 40 F. And hasn’t froze in a while- though week or so ago, there was some snow on the low hills around here. But it seems we will get a lot flowers, soon.
Of course what most interested in is ocean settlements, which should be caused to appear, once we get a lot rocket launches {hundreds, and thousands per year]. They will also to related to sub-orbital travel- or when rockets are as cheap as airline travel- maybe within a decade.
New Glenn rocket could launch this year. Sure, was suppose to be last year, but delays in rockets isn’t abnormal. So we going to have two crazy billionaires, making reusable rockets.
And there is not shortage of crazy billionaires, in our world.
When a planet or moon rotates faster, its surface’s temperature is less differentiated. This results in rising the surface average temperature.
Because for a sphere (it is a well known and explained phenomenon), for the same IR energy emission, the less differentiated the sphere’s surface temperature – the higher the average surface temperature.
But it is about a phenomenon, when sphere has been previously warmed, or, when sphere has its own inner source/sources of energy.
Planet or moon gets its surface energy from the interaction processes with the incident solar EM energy.
When interacting, part of the solar energy gets reflected as SW EM energy.
The rest is the not reflected portion of the incident solar SW EM energy.
Most of it gets transformed into IR outgoing EM energy, without being absorbed.
Only a small part gets absorbed in form of heat in inner layers.
–
When planet or moon faster rotation, less gets transformed into IR outgoing EM energy, and more is accumulated in inner layers.
For planets and moons, it is different then.
For the same IR emission, the faster rotating planet or moon accumulates more solar energy – thus the faster rotating planets and moons are warmer. Their surface temperatures are less differentiated, and, also, their surfaces accumulate more solar energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos…that could be due, in part, to what Shula claimed about radiation. Since the only way to dissipate heat is via radiation, heat dissipation via radiation is inefficient, and solar input is very efficient at warming the planet.
Therefore, the planet cannot rid itself of heat as fast as it receives it from the Sun. Ergo, temperature rises. It’s the same with the Moon, it cools more slowly than it warms, therefore its temperature is higher than it should be.
I agree with you on rotational speed, just adding more to the story.
Thank you, Gordon.
Yes, at night, the accumulated by Moon heat cools more slowly.
The faster rotating Earth has shorter nights, so Earth is warmer.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Gordon Robertson: “Someone erred grossly when they claimed a change in vector direction is an acceleration. I took a semester course in vector calculus, preceded by a semester course in linear algebra, and I remember clearly how vectors are added and multiplied.”
I’m still waiting for you to tell us where the error is because, since velocity is a vector, any change in its magnitude or direction constitutes an acceleration, according to the definition of acceleration.
A,
“Im still waiting for you to tell us where the error is because”
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Acceleration was not defined with vectors in mind. It was defined based on rectilinear motion as the rate of change of the velocity of a mass. Then it was no doubt applied to curvilinear motion in the same way but as the rate of change of the angle of a radial line from an axis to the body in motion.
Although a change in the rate of motion of a mass along a curve could be used in the same manner as with rectilinear motion, it applies only for an instant. Then the acceleration must be recalculated in subsequent instants.
That’s easy enough to do on a curvilinear shape like a circle by summing (integrating) the function of a circle based on an instanteneous rate of change but it’s a lot easier to track a changing angle of a radial line. That’s why we tend to use x-y coordinates for linear motion and polar coordinates for curvilinear motion.
So, if you have a mass moving along a curvilinear path at a constant velocity, you could observe the tangent line at any point where the tangent line represents the instantaneous motion of the COG of the mass. In fact, in engineering problems we replaced the entire mass (presuming a uniform rigid body), moving along a curve, with a vector representing the motion of its COM. Therefore the tangent line become a vector quantity since it has magnitude and an instantaneous direction.
So, if we now track a vector that represents the velocity of the COG of a mass moving along a curve, it must behave in such a manner that it’s analogue in polar coordinates is the same. If we define a mass moving at a constant angular velocity along a curve, it means that the angle a radial line to the mass COG from an axis coordinate is changing at a constant rate.
As long as the change of angle of the radial line is constant, there can be no acceleration of the mass. That changing angle, however, of a radial line, is not the same as the changing angle of the tangential vector wrt to the x-axis, representing the tangential motion of the COG of the mass.
That’s where the mistake comes in. Some seems to think that a changing tangential vector angle of a body moving on a curve suggests acceleration. It can’t be acceleration if the body is moving with constant velocity along the curve.
This is the same misunderstanding we have with the Moon. If the Moon was moving in a circular orbit at a constant velocity, the angle a radial line from Earth’s centre would change wrt to an axis would be constant. However, a tangential vector representing lunar motion (constant velocity) would change its orientation though 360 degrees wrt the stars per orbit.
That change in orientation angle of a tangential vector does not indicate a rotation of the Moon on a local axis. Neither does the change in angle represent an acceleration of the Moon in its orbit.
> Although a change in the rate of motion of a mass along a curve could be used in the same manner as with rectilinear motion, it applies only for an instant.
🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌
“🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
How much change of rate can you fit in an instant?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“How much change of rate can you fit in an instant?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m sure Walter R. Hogle appreciates the relevance of Mike Flynn’s replies to cover up for Mr. Asshat’s blunder.
He once told me he was big at math.
wee willy…[GR]”Although a change in the rate of motion of a mass along a curve could be used in the same manner as with rectilinear motion, it applies only for an instant”.
wee willy replies with ducks. Doh!!!
Is there any sense in your brain at all? The direction of a vector representing motion on any curve applies only for an instant. Next instant, the direction has changed. The vector represents the rate of change, ergo, the rate of change applies for only an instant, which we know better as a differential quantity, described as an instant in layman’s talk.
Would it do any good to ask you to butt out of debates you have not the slightest chance of understanding? No…I didn’t think so. You specialize in making a complete ass of yourself.
“Im sure Walter R. Hogle appreciates the relevance of Mike Flynns replies to cover up for Mr. Asshats blunder.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
> ducks
Looks like Mr. Asshat needs new glasses!
🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌
“🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
A rate of change. An instant. Constant or average rates are quite manageable using vector calculus. In fact, simply consider fields, Mr. Asshat’s pet object.
Think from time to time, silly sock puppet!
“Think from time to time, silly sock puppet!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Elon Musk Doubles Down on Mars Dreams and Details Whats Next for SpaceXs Starship
By Edd Gent April 12, 2024
https://singularityhub.com/2024/04/12/elon-musk-doubles-down-on-mars-dreams-and-details-whats-next-for-spacexs-starship/
“One glaring omission in the talk was any detail on whos going to be paying for all of this. While the goal of making humankind multiplanetary is a noble one, its far from clear how the endeavor would make money for those who put up the funds to make it possible.”
Sell real estate.
Anyone can own any land on Mars. So, free land.
How do sell free land?
The land has access to water and power. {which you paid for- it’s not free]. But you have free Mars land, but land is sold close to where you can cheap water and cheap electrical power.
So if you want some land in which you are going to mine water and have some solar panel. It’s free. But if you live in town, and live off the electrical grid and get water piped to you. Then you have to buy real estate. Or you get real estate which might increase in value as the town grows.
Or just like on Earth.
And town is also going have laws and etc. If you don’t want laws and etc, don’t live in or near a town.
Nobody is going to Mars
Nobody is scheduled to go to Mars orbit or Mars surface.
People are scheduled to orbit our Moon. And scheduled to land on the Moon.
There is no rocket which can get crew to Mars orbit, or Mars surface.
There is no rocket, yet which can land crew on the Moon.
If the Starship rocket can land crew on the Moon, the Starship can also send crew to Mars {either to orbit or land on Mars}.
Starship test flight 4 will happen in about 1 month. There probably be a Starship test flight 5, in couple months. And the 6th launch might not be a test flight.
SLS will launch crew to orbit the Moon sometime in later part of 2025.
When it launches crew to go to lunar surface, will later than this- it needs Starship or New Glenn rocket to do this mission.
Probably the Starship won’t send crew to Mars before it land crew on the Moon. But maybe do the Dear Moon mission before that.
SpaceX’s Announced Starship Upgrades are Ludicrous and Awesome!
Marcus House
522K subscribers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=revW3hiJfhs
A good weekly round up
Bindidon,
From WUWT –
“NOAA fabricates temperature data for more than 30 percent of the 1,218 USHCN reporting stations that no longer exist. – Lt. Col. John Shewchuk, certified consulting meteorologist”
Bindidon, tell me it isn’t true!
You might also have a view on –
“All these different entities out there, like NOAA, GISS, BEST, all the entities I listed, use the same data from GHCN. And they all apply their own set of ‘special sauce’ adjustments to create what they believe is true.
Its almost like each of these entities is creating their version of the real, true God. You know, it’s like a religion. Theyre using different mathematical and statistical techniques to produce their version of climate reality.
And it all goes back to the same original, badly-sited, badly-maintained ghost station dataset around the world. USHCN and GHCN are the same stuff.” – Anthony Watts.
You could always make your usual accusations of blah, blah, teethless ankle biting, arrogant polemics, and all the rest of your diversionary attempts to avoid facing the reality that you can’t even describe your GHE God!
[smiles]
Anthony Watts, a ‘meteorologist’ ???
Flynnson is apparently stoopid enough to swallow anything from anyone – provided it serves to spread even the stoopidest of lies.
“Lt. Col. John Shewchuk, certified consulting meteorologist”
Who said Anthony Watts is a meteorologist? You, so you could claim he isn’t?
As I said before, you could always make your usual accusations of blah, blah, teethless ankle biting, arrogant polemics, and all the rest of your diversionary attempts to avoid facing the reality that you cant even describe your GHE God!
What is the “stoopidest lie” you accuse “Flynnson” of spreading?
You can’t quite say, can you?
Maybe you could explain why you said “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”, and later said that your statement was nonsense – and that you would never intentionally say such a thing! Oh dear, you write something nonsensical, get caught out writing it, and then claim it must have been an accident!
It doesn’t make you look terribly bright does it? Have you come up with a description of the GHE which isn’t nonsense? No?
Colour me unsurprised!
[smiling broadly at fanatical GHE cultist, hoist with his own petard]
Mike Flynn,
That John Shewchuk:
https://co2coalition.org/teammember/john-shewchuk/
?
Silly sock puppet!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“That John Shewchuk:”
I don’t know. If you say that there are two John Shewchuks who “After retiring from the Air Force he became a Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) and was board certified by the American Meteorological Society”, I cannot prove you wrong.
You are quite the idiot, aren’t you? You keep providing links which support what I say. Is this a result of your declared love for me, or are you just stu$#8204;pid?
It doesnt matter either way, does it?
That’s not addressing Swenson’s overall point.
Mike Flynn,
You cited a crank who brown noses Tony.
Was your
“tu$#8204;pid”
a way to give your st#8204;pid little encoding trick to bypass moderation?
Wee Willy Wanker,
“You cited a crank who brown noses Tony.”
You are cranking out gibberish again, as walterrh03 appreciates.
As to your silly “Was your
“tu$#8204;pid”
a way to give your st#8204;pid little encoding trick to bypass moderation?”, if you claim I wouldnt tell you the truth, why would you waste your time asking?
Very strange, Willard. Your trolling efforts become more inept by the day.
Keep at it – you might become an adequate troll, one day. At the moment you are only an object of derision, and a general laughing stock!
[laughing at fanatical GHE cultist]
It thinks it enhances its responses by throwing off-topic insults like “whiny bitch” or “silly sock puppet”. It can’t even use its brain correctly because it’s pathologically unstable.
Walter R. Hogle has opinions about tone:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1638409
Whacky Wee Willy,
“Walter R. Hogle has opinions about tone: . . .”.
Do you agree or disagree, or are you just totally confused?
I know you have boasted in the past about wasting space. Maybe you really meant to boast that you are a waste of space, is that it? Come on, Willard, don’t be shy – be as boastful as you like!
It really makes no difference, does it? You are what you are, whether you like it or not.
Carry on.
[laughs at numpty]
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Do you agree or disagree”
I agree that Walter R. Hogle is a whiny bitch.
What are your braying about, silly sock puppet?
Whacky Wee Willy,
“Walter R. Hogle has opinions about tone: . . .”.
Do you agree or disagree, or are you just totally confused?
I know you have boasted in the past about wasting space. Maybe you really meant to boast that you are a waste of space, is that it? Come on, Willard, dont be shy be as boastful as you like!
It really makes no difference, does it? You are what you are, whether you like it or not.
Carry on.
[laughs loudly at numpty]
It’s so pathologically unstable that it’s doing the very thing it’s projecting to everyone else.
Walter R. Hogle keeps whining like the whiny bitch we all know and love.
7.
“Walter R. Hogle keeps whining like the whiny bitch we all know and love.”
Really?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Really?”
Why do you ask?
Silly sock puppet!
“Silly sock puppet!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
gb…”But if you just had two large rocks orbiting, they cause gravity waves. [As they orbit around their single barycenter]”.
***
I can’t see why they are called waves, since gravity forms a static field, like a permanent magnet. Waves vary in amplitude and gravity cannot produce waves in water since it is a static field.
Light waves and sound waves do vary in amplitude at a given frequency.
“I cant see why they are called waves, since gravity forms a static field, like a permanent magnet. ”
If you move a permanent magnet closer and further away, the static field varies in strength.
If outside {or inside] the two orbiting large rocks, their gravitational effect, varies.
Your only problem is that people are talking about space/time and you disagree about the concept of space/time.
Or there is no problem if space/time is not mentioned.
gb…”If you move a permanent magnet closer and further away, the static field varies in strength”.
***
It’s still a static field, not varying like a wave. A static field varies its strength based on the inverse square law. It is still the same field, no variance as with a wave action.
An electromagnetic field associated with an electric motor or a transformer can vary when the current is AC. The EM field generated by an antenna is AC and acts like a wave in that it has a frequency and a wavelength.
Gravity is such a static field and cannot vary like a wave. Ergo, there is no such thing as a gravity wave. Any associated wave action is due to other forces than gravity.
> Gravity is such a static field
🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌
“🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌”
Willard, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Find the missing word(s):
“The ______ would be that value where the distribution spends most of its time, the most common value if you will.”
Best of luck!
yawn!!!
“The ______ would be . . .”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Cat caught your tongue?
Silly sock puppet!
“Cat caught your tongue?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
It’s not very hard, Mike Flynn.
Take a wild guess, silly sock puppet!
“Its not very hard, Mike Flynn.
Take a wild guess, silly sock puppet!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Anyone else?
“Anyone else?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Not even Walter R. Hogle?
“Not even Walter R. Hogle?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here, Mike –
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-3895375
Cheers.
“Here, Mike ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
The mode.
Speed of gravity.
I suggest a test.
The Sun raises tides in the oceans due to its gravity.
Simplifying slightly, a solar high tide occurs when the Sun is directly overhead.
Light from the Sun takes eight minutes to reach the Earth. If gravity travels at the speed of light it will be similarly delayed.
If gravity travels instantaneously there will be no delay.
If there is a light speed delay the tide will respond to the Sun’s position eight minutes ago. If there is no delay the tide will respond to the Sun’s position now (Please don’t give me a hard time about the meaning of “now”. Smile emoji.)
This is a measurable difference Solar tides would occur eight minutes later if the speed of gravity is faster than the speed of light.
Entropic Man,
Do it, document it thoroughly, and show your results – if you have the courage of your convictions.
Otherwise, you are just asking others to waste time which you are not prepared to.
Maybe somebody will take up your “suggestion” – who knows? If nobody does, maybe they value your opinions as much as I do.
Already done.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-012-5603-3
If you examine figure 2 and figure 3 you will see that the time difference between the “instantaneous” and “speed of light” times is 8 minutes 26 seconds +/- 25 seconds.
The average time for light to travel from the Sun to travel from the Sun to the Earth is 8 minutes 19 seconds.
The “scientists” don’t understand the concept of a “field”. They’re trying to measure how fast something is moving that is not moving!
Clint R
The Sun’s gravity field is static, but the Earth is moving. It’s not actually a movement problem, it is a vector problem.
Because of the light speed delay an observer on the rotating Earth sees the Sun 8 minutes 19 seconds behind its actual position. The apparent position is 2.1_degrees East of the Sun’s actual position.
Due to the light speed delay the vector of the Sun’s gravitation is towards the Sun’s apparent position rather than its actual position.
Since the Sun apparently passes it’s highest position eight minutes or 2 degrees late, so does it’s gravity vector and so does the high solar tide.
All nonsense Ent, like your “passenger jets flying backward”.
Light travels, but gravity exists as a “field”. Earth moves within that field, but the field is not moving.
Why do you try to pervert reality?
When Puffman starts the false accusations, it’s time to stop. Wrestling with a pig is like wrestling with a sock puppet.
Puffman only impresses other cranks like Walter R. Hogle and Graham D. Warner, anyway. He has NOTHING.
ET: Now apply those observations to Newtonian calculations of orbits. Such as Mercury.
“Alternatively, do the Pole Dance Experiment.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Puffman only impresses other cranks like Walter R. Hogle and Graham D. Warner, anyway”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint,
“Light travels, but gravity exists as a field. Earth moves within that field, but the field is not moving.”
Yes, the field is moving, try googling Edwin Hubble, who first showed that the Sun is not the center of the universe.
Do try to keep up.
Sorry Ant, but that would prove nothing as Sun’s gravitational field is already established.
But at least you’re trying to test your flawed beliefs. If you tested your false belief that passenger jets fly backward, you might learn something.
> If you tested your false belief
Do it, Puffman.
Document it thoroughly, and show your results.
If you have the courage of your convictions.
Alternatively, do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Silly willy, your childish efforts to attack me only increase my credibility.
Puffman, your childish efforts to attack “scientists” only increase their credibility.
When silly willy starts the false accusations, it’s time to stop. I can’t out-idi0t a cult child.
Silly willy only impresses other cultists like Nate and Norman, anyway. He has NOTHING.
Puffman, please stop trolling.
“Alternatively, do the Pole Dance Experiment.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
EM,
Maybe Im overly suspicious, but I suspect you had read the paper, before “suggested” a “test”.
Just trolling, were you, or trying to appear wise?
In any case, I suggest you re-read the paper, and let me know if you can find fault with it. If you claim it contains no errors of fact, or unsupported assertions, I will be glad to point some out.
Whether gravitational waves in the space-time exist, and whether they propagate at an invariant finite speed is still a matter of speculation. At least it is a good diversion from accepting the fact that nobody has managed to describe the GHE.
That’s what all this is about, isn’t it?
You can’t “suggest a test” for the GHE, can you? You would first have to describe the GHE – and you can’t even do that! Away with ye, laddie! Just another fanatical GHE cultist, in denial of reality, aren’t you?
You are overly suspicious. The offset gravity vector concept idea was not original, but I only found the specific paper after you asked for evidence.
Evidence for the GHE? The hypothesis predicts that abso*rbtion of 15 micrometres radiation by atmospheric CO2 would leave a notch in the OLR spectrum at 15 micrometres.
Like the notch seen here around wavenumber 700.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
Ent, CO2 absorbing 15μ photons does NOT mean CO2 can warm the planet. This has been explained to you numerous times. Bananas also absorb infrared.
Where does your failure to understand the basics leave you?
EM,
You wrote –
“but I only found the specific paper after you asked for evidence.”
I didn’t ask for evidence at all! You just made that up to save face, didnt you?
I didnt ask for “evidence” for the GHE, either. Maybe if you described the GHE, someone could see if your description agreed with fact. You changed tack, and wrote “The hypothesis predicts that abso*rbtion of 15 micrometres radiation by atmospheric CO2 would leave a notch in the OLR spectrum at 15 micrometres.”
What hypothesis are you talking about? You claim you have a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon which can’t actually be described? Are you quite mad – or just a fanatical GHE cultist who refuses to accept reality?
Still no description of the GHE better than “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets.”?
Pardon me if I laugh.
Mike Flynn,
Here is a test for your silliness –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Silly sock puppet!
“Silly sock puppet!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Maybe you could consider that dry ice is visible and gaseous CO2 is not.
Baby steps towards understanding the greenhouse effect.
You gotta start somewhere.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.