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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Graham D. Warner relapses.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Back to the GHE nonsense, from the archive:
More reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #7 — The bogus “More energy always means higher temperature”
The cult believes that “more energy always means higher temperature”. It sounds logical, that’s why they use it a lot. It’s easy to trick people, if something sounds logical. It’s even easier when most people do not have an understanding of thermodynamics and radiative physics. Hopefully, this will help to increase the understanding.
The temperature of a solid object is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules. In simple terms, this is done with a cheap thermometer that contains a fluid in a vertical tube. When the thermometer is placed in contact with the object, the kinetic energy of the object’s molecules can transfer to the molecules in the liquid, causing a change in its level in the tube. The tube is calibrated with markings so the temperature can then be read.
To increase the temperature of the object, more energy must be added. BUT, it must be the “right kind” of energy.
Consider a perfectly insulated box (system), containing a brick. The brick is at a temperature of 100°F. If a second identical brick, but at a temperature of 80°F, is placed along side the first brick, will the system temperature increase? More energy was added to the system, so did the temperature increase? Of course not. In fact, in this scenario, the temperature actually would DECREASE. Energy was added, but the temperature decreased.
Clint,
Fanatical GHE cultists use “flux intensity” as a substitute for temperature, thinking that nobody will realise that using arithmetical operations on fluxes is about as pointless as using those same techniques on temperatures.
Most people (even those who should know better) glibly accept that adding two fluxes results in a higher flux ie a higher temperature!
I wonder if those same people would believe that adding a temperature of 20 degrees to another temperature of 20 degrees results in a temperature of 40 degrees. “Climate scientists”, and their cult followers who gaily add and subtract temperatures (calling them radiative intensities) are either frauds or fools. I don’t know which – in most cases.
Exactly Swenson. We’ve seen the fraud by Folkerts, where he claims that two 315 W/m² fluxes can result in a temperature of 325K.
That would lead to ice being able to boil water! Just add more ice…..
“Fanatical GHE cultists use “flux intensity” as a substitute for temperature”
and
“That would lead to ice being able to boil water! “
It’s fascinating that after all these 1000’s of posts, you both still misunderstand flux at such a fundamental level.
Flux LEAVING a surface (aka radiant exitance) can be used a ‘substitute’ for temperature (if you know emissivity). Radiant exitance cannot be added.
Flux ARRIVING a surface (aka irradiance) cannot be used a ‘substitute’ for temperature. Irradiance can be added.
So if one piece of ice emits emits 325 W/m^2 and second piece of ice emits 325 W/m^2, these two cannot be added to give 650 W/m^2,
But if 325 W/m^2 of irradiance arrives from the sun and another 325 W/m^2 of irradiance arrives from the sun, these two can be added to give 650 W/m^2 arriving at the surface. Add a couple more and these 325 W/m^2 fluxes could boil water.
“these two cannot be added to give 650 W/m^2”
Right, but I see you didn’t include the m^2 from the second piece. So they can be added, Tim, just have to correctly account for the m^2 which Clint R somehow always fails to do. For example, (325W + 325W)/2 m^2 = 650 W/2m^2 = 325 W/m^2 from your water ice. Your IR thermometer does all that for you to correctly display the ice temperature in view whatever the m^2.
All this is humorously beyond Clint R’s science comprehension.
(I somehow swapped the numbers 315 vs 325, but you all know what was meant)/
Ball4 says: “I see you didnt include the m^2 from the second piece.”
There is no particular reason to ‘include’ square meters from multiple places. Any blackbody at 0 C will emit 315 W/m^2. Each and every square mm will be emitting a radiant exitance of 315 W/m^2. The presence or absence of other emitting surfaces will not change that number.
We only need to include multiple sources if we are trying to calculate the irradiance at some other surface.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The lawsuit against the billionaire, filed in October, alleges that Musk used his colossal social media platform to amplify a false far-right conspiracy theory linking 22-year-old Ben Brody to a brawl in Oregon between the neo-Nazi group Rose City Nationalists and the Proud Boys, a neo-fascist fight club. The brawl occurred during Oregon Citys first Pride Night Fest, when both groups came to disrupt the event and spew anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric.
Brody wasnt even in the same state when the June 24 brawl occurred. But his world was turned upside down when far-right X accounts, magnified by Musk, falsely identified him as a member of Rose City Nationalists (and an undercover federal agent) and posted his personal information online.
Musk amplified the conspiracy theory repeatedly to his more than 180 million followers, suggesting Brody was a fresh-faced federal agent pretending to be a neo-Nazi in a “false flag situation,” a phrase used to suggest a harmful event was deliberately set up to misrepresent a group or person.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elon-musk-didnt-want-his-latest-deposition-released-here-it-is_n_66133d2ce4b0d81853f9a766
Is Elon going to Mars?
It seems a lot neo-Nazi which are doing something {rather than being a lazy drunk …] are federal agents.
Going to Mars has been something NASA has been claiming it wanted to do for many decades.
The commonly given case to land humans on Mars, was the claim that Mars was the most habitable planet, other than Earth.
It seems to me, that Mercury could be as habitable, but Mercury despite being the closest planet to Earth, in terms of trajectory distance, is very difficult to get it’s surface {it would require a lot of delta-v to orbit it, and to land on it}.
In terms of delta-v, Mars is fairly easy to get to. Venus is slightly easier to orbit than Mars, and it is the second shortest orbital distance to reach.
NASA has occasionally put forward ideas of doing manned mission to Venus upper atmosphere- having balloon type manned exploration.
Anyhow, NASA has so far failed to proven that Mars is the most habitable planet other than Earth. And due to it’s thin atmosphere, NASA has failed to put a payload larger than 1 ton, on the Mars surface. Also NASA has failed to determine whether the weak gravity of Mars would problem for people living on Mars.
> It seems
Step 3 – Saying Stuff.
It might be better to live in low gravity world and Mars could be better place to live than Earth. But generally I assume that not a lot of people can live on Mars- unless they can get needed resources off world. Though it seems Mars itself could support a few million people, but I don’t count this as a spacefaring civilization.
But mainly Mars needs more exploration to get beyond what “seems” to be the case.
In terms of rolling the dice, NASA agreeing to accept the Starship as lunar lander, was important step towards NASA being able to explore Mars.
If Starship can land crew and return crew from the Moon, NASA will have a means to land enough payload on Mars so can have bases on Mars so, it can explore Mars.
As I have said, before, using Venus orbit is an important element in terms Mars exploration and later Mars settlements.
And being able to use Venus orbit, is important step toward human becoming a spacefaring civilization.
“Step 3 Saying Stuff.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You misplaced your comment and you forgot a character.
Revise and resubmit.
“Revise and resubmit”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop riling.
“Please stop riling.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop making Walter R. Hogle sad.
“Please stop making Walter R. Hogle sad.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop PSTering like Graham D. Warner.
“Please stop PSTering like .. . ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You omitted “Graham D. Warner.”
Why?
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson:
1/ “Acceleration was not defined with vectors in mind.”
Newton did not explicitly use the term “vector” in his original definition of acceleration. However, his definition implicitly involves vector quantities.
Newton defined acceleration as follows:
Acceleration, force, and motion are all vector quantities in classical mechanics. The direction of acceleration is determined by the direction of the force impressed. Therefore, the concept of acceleration as described by Newton implicitly involves vectorial properties.
2/ “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.”
Newton was very clear about this with his first and second laws.
Law I:
Law II:
From your example of the Moon’s orbit, there is a net external force, called the centripetal force, which is directed toward “Earth’s centre” as is the centripetal acceleration vector.
2/a/ “you could observe the tangent line at any point where the tangent line represents the instantaneous motion of the COG of the mass.”
At t1, v=v1; and at t2, v=v2; where v1 and v2 are instantaneous velocity vectors. You can calculate delta v=v2-v1, and delta t=t2-t1, followed by centripetal acceleration= delta v/delta t. From vector arithmetic, delta v points in the same direction as the centripetal force.
1/”Newton did not explicitly use the term vector in his original definition of acceleration. However, his definition implicitly involves vector quantities”.
***
No argument there. However, a vector is not a complex notion, it is actually a fairly simply way of stating what you quoted Newton as saying later in 1/…
Can we agree on something? Acceleration to an observer, if pronounced, appears as the motion of a body increasing its speed or decreasing it. That suggests acceleration is a real phenomenon and I think it is. If you watch an airliner taking off, it begins with 0 velocity and accelerates till it reaches takeoff velocity. Have you ever wondered what that means physically?
The problem comes when we try to measure the rate of change of velocity which is acceleration. We need a clock to do that and it’s the reason we invented time, so we could do just that. However, even as late as Galileo, they had no clocks accurate enough to time even a mass sliding down a ramp.
“The change of motion, per unit time, is proportional to the force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed”.
Therefor a vector is simply a means of stating the direction in which a force acts, and as a result, velocity or acceleration”.
Remember that Newton had a stipulation for that statement. He said in Principia, that “IF” a force can move a mass….then…. We were never given that stipulation when presented with f = ma.
Remember also, that an external force can only move in a straight line. There is no such thing as a curving force applied along a curved path. Such a force requires a torque provided by a lever arm, in other words, a solid body attached to the rotating mass.
Any force applied along such a path, that causes motion must be applied along a straight line, often a tangent line. In engineering, if a force was applied at an angle, we automatically broke the force into its radial and tangential components.
—
Re 2, your point seems to be…”From your example of the Moons orbit, there is a net external force, called the centripetal force, which is directed toward Earths centre as is the centripetal acceleration vector”.
***
I am very aware of that centripetal force but recall Newton’s stipulation. “IF” a force can move a mass, then f = ma, in this case, f = mg. Is Earth’s gravity strong enough at the altitude of the Moon to move it enough to produce acceleration? What would happen if the Moon was not in orbit with a considerable momentum, would it accelerate toward Earth?
If we consider the effect of Moon’s gravity on Earth, it is barely strong enough to raise the oceans by 1 metre. Although people talk about the Earth and Moon rotating about a barycentre, I think that is more mathematical science fiction than fact. If the Earth was rotating around a barycentre with a mass the size of the Moon, its axis would deviate about 2 km wrt the barycentre. The only measured axial deviation is about 4 feet, due to a slight wobble of the axis.
—-
2a…if v = v1 at t1 and v2 at t2, so that v1 is greater than or less than v2, then we have had a change in velocity, which is acceleration. However, the Moon moves with a constant linear momentum and that translates to a constant linear velocity. If the linear velocity is constant, there can be no acceleration.
Conversely, the only way to change the lunar momentum is by adding a tangential force. Where is that force? If you add an aiding force, the Moon will speed up and change orbit. If you add an opposing force, the Moon will slow down and lose orbit. The aiding and abetting forces would have to come from changes in Earth’s gravitational force components.
Looking at this from a different perspective, consider that the lunar orbital period is a constant. We need to differentiate between speed and velocity. Speed is the average obtained by dividing the orbital distance by the time taken to traverse the orbit (your delta s/delta t). Velocity is the instantaneous rate of change of distance divided by time, ds/dt.
Only if that velocity is constant can it equal the speed. Many people claim that the Moon changes velocity in different parts of the orbit but none of them explain how that works. I think they might be thinking of a human skating chain, where several people wearing ice skates hold hand and try to accelerate the outer skater to ever greater velocities.
The Moon does not work like that because the human skating chain has a connected force between skaters and the Moon has no such force to change its speed. It’s true that gravitational force components will change slightly over an elliptical orbit, and that could account for changes in orbital velocity, but not according to f = ma.
I think the gravitational force acting on the Moon in the tangential direction, the force required to change the lunar tangential velocity, is far too weak to do that. However, there is another explanation.
The lunar orbit is a balance (resultant) between Earth’s radial gravitational force and the considerable lunar momentum/velocity. I don’t think the radial force at the altitude of the Moon is enough to cause a radial acceleration but it is enough to cause a constant radial deviation from the lunar tangential motion. I think there are times when the tangential gravitational vector is slightly reduced, affecting the balance by allowing the linear momentum to have more effect.
That would elongate the orbit, producing the slight ellipse. However, the linear near velocity would not have to vary. That would account for the apparent change in velocity of the Moon during an orbit.
“Is Earths gravity strong enough at the altitude of the Moon to move it enough to produce acceleration? What would happen if the Moon was not in orbit with a considerable momentum, would it accelerate toward Earth?”
Yes that was exactly the basis of his discovery of the inverse square law.
The lore is the apple fell, accelerating to the ground, at 9.8 m/s^2. And he saw the Moon orbiting, and began to calculate at what rate it needed to be falling toward the Earth as it moved sideways, in order to stay in its orbit. He calculated that it would ‘fall’ with much much lower acceleration, toward the Earth.
And thar reduction turned out to agree with the inverse square law.
Upper low over California with a patch of cold.
https://i.ibb.co/6W9j3Zv/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-04-13-204406.png
No such thing as stationary sun
The solar system would not hold together if the gravity moved only at speed of light
https://youtu.be/fJuaPyQFrYk
“The solar system would not hold together if the gravity moved only at speed of light”
So what speed does gravity travel at?
wiki:
–GW170817 and the demise of two neutron stars
The detection of GW170817 in 2017, the finale of a neutron star inspiral observed through both gravitational waves and gamma rays, at a distance of 130 million light years, currently provides by far the best limit on the difference between the speed of light and that of gravity. Photons were detected 1.7 seconds after peak gravitational wave emission; assuming a delay of zero to 10 seconds, the difference between the speeds of gravitational and electromagnetic waves, vGW − vEM, is constrained to between −310−15 and +710−16 times the speed of light.–
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
Now apply that observation to the Newtonian calculations to orbits, specifically Mercury. Newton used an infinite speed for gravity to do his calculations.
gravitational waves detection was a fakery
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/
RLH
Newtonian physics does not account for a light speed limit on gravity, or for frame dragging.
This is why relativity better describes the long term orbital mechanics of the solar system.
The textbook example is the different predictions for precession of Mercury’s orbit. With its 88 day orbit this is the most easily measured precession.
There is a similar difference for all the planets, but their longer orbital periods make measurement much more difficult.
“Newtonian physics does not account for a light speed limit on gravity”
Specifically Newtonian calculations on orbits were done with a infinite speed of gravity. When redone with the speed of light (which we now know it is limited to) the calculations show just the same precession as is actually observed.
quote from Eben’s link…
“Gravitational waves are triggered by the collision of massive objects such as black holes or neutron stars. They travel for billions of years, alternately squeezing and stretching the space-time in their path. Spreading out in all directions, they get weaker as they go, but they can be detected on Earth with a sufficiently sensitive instrument”.
***
This is something I would expect to see on Star Trek, or Dr. Who. In other words, science fiction.
I want to know first of all how space-time can exist, never mind be stretched. Space as we know it is essentially a vacuum, interspersed in places with hydrogen clouds. The hydrogen is very thin in density. How does one stretch that? Secondly, no one has ever explained what time is, never mind how it can stretch?
“gravitational waves detection was a fakery”
Nah. Only if you are inclined to give contrarians the last word, 5 y ago.
But that aint how it science works.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/studies-rescue-ligos-gravitational-wave-signal-from-the-noise-20181213/
To be fair, comparing gravity to the speed of light is like comparing apples and oranges. In your video link, they show the solar system moving in spirals. Obviously the Sun with its solar system moves as a whole through the galaxy and the galaxy may move through one larger dimension at least. However, the spirals are unexplained.
Gravity is a field and acts like a magnetic field. If you bring metal near a magnetic field it is acted upon by weaker outer fields and as the metal gets closer to the magnet, the field becomes stronger, acting with a greater force.
Light, on the other hand, is emitted from electrons in atoms in a burning mass of hydrogen and helium and begins life as a quantum of energy with a specific frequency. If anything, that is where the limit in the speed of light comes from, it is related to how fast electrons can produce quanta of EM as the transition between energy levels.
Although Bohr stipulated that electron transition have no time factor it appears that if electrons have to transition through multiple orbits, say 7, if they transition between orbits 7,6, and 5, they produce IR frequencies yet if they transitions over the entire 7 orbits, they produce UV frequencies.
Makes you want to say, “Hmmm!!!”.
So, it appears that gravity does not have to travel as a quantum of energy over a distance, the field is in existence at all times and a mass moving through the field is affected by the field strength at that particular location.
That does not explain what gravity is or what causes it.
Iran’s retaliatory attack on Israel has begun.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/israel-attack-strikes-live-updates-rcna147477
And from Iran’s own territory, too.That is effectively a declaration of war.
It allows Israel to legitimately attack Iran directly.
Now we all worry about escalation. Remember that Israel is the only Middle East country with nuclear weapons.
I would like to believe that world leaders understand the gravity of potentially using nuclear weapons. In any conflict, particularly one involving nuclear arms, the consequences are devastating for all.
All eyes are on the international response.
Ever since the 1973 Yom Kippur war there has been an unofficial agreement between Israel and its Arab neighbours.
The Arabs refrain from going to war with Israel, while Israel refrains from using nuclear weapons on the Arabs.
Hopefully they all stay below this threshold, but it assumes that everyone involved stays rational.
What if a hard-line government in Iran decides that 1 million dead martyrs in Tehran is a fair price to pay for the destruction of Israel?
That’s if Israel can be toppled. The U.S. would undoubtedly come to its defense by sending weapons, not fighting side by side along with it, because that would take much more resources.
Without allies, Iran wouldn’t have much success because it’s a heavily sanctioned country. It allocates a lot of its income towards investments in its military, but Israel and US military capabilities are technologically superior.
Despite Israel’s damaged reputation from its overly harsh retaliation over the last ~7 months, I don’t think any country would go so far as to help Iran.
Walter,
Not taking sides (the future is unknowable), but “but Israel and US military capabilities are technologically superior.” might be quite meaningless in terms of outcomes.
Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan – all demonstrate that technological superiority does not necessarily lead to satisfactory conclusions.
A current instance “The cost of using expensive naval missiles which can run up to $2.1 million a shot to destroy unsophisticated Houthi drones estimated at a few thousand dollars each is a growing concern” – Politico.
As regards Israel attempting to exterminate Hamas, current Israeli costs are estimated at over two billion USD, only managing to kill 35,000 people so far. More than 2,000,000 to go.
I suppose all the pundits will solemnly predict the future, then come up with logical excuses if they happen to be wrong. I’ll wait on the sidelines as long as I can.
This is an international problem started by terrorists, The UN should get out of the climate business and do what they are supposed to be doing. The US has taken on the business of protecting Israel but it was the UK who installed then in Palestine in the first place. It should be an international effort to sort our Iran and other terrorist nations.
Swenson,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t those countries defending against the U.S.? The U.S. sometimes meddles in foreign affairs where it doesn’t belong. That’s especially true with regards to Vietnam; there was no benefit to be gained from defending the country against its own civil war.
Israel’s best bet is to defend and exhaust against Iran’s forces. Offensively, I’m not sure how much luck it would have in trying to exterminate Israel, but defensively, it has a much higher chance of success due to its mountainous topography.
Regarding Hamas, I agree that Israel is going to continue until it is satisfied with its retaliation, which is destroying the country with no civilians left, which would be a repeat of Nakba in 1948. I understand anger in that it makes people do irrational things. Israel is not taking into account their international reputation both in the short term and the long term.
Gordon Robertson,
I agree. The UN is a radical organization and a sock puppet of China. It’s not just the climate scam; it’s also the covid-19 pandemic. They kissed the ground China walked on by praising their response, even though the outbreak was their fault as it leaked from one of their labs.
They also claimed that the virus wouldn’t create antibodies and there was no immunity after infection early on, even though every single infection known to mankind has resulted in the formation of antibodies and T-cells inside the immune system.
“As regards Israel attempting to exterminate Hamas, current Israeli costs are estimated at over two billion USD, only managing to kill 35,000 people so far. More than 2,000,000 to go.”
No Islamic nation wants Hamas, and no one wants terrorists.
And no matter how you look at it, less Hamas, the better for Islamic religion. {more in heaven or less on Earth}
Getting rid of 2 million of them could best US governmental dollars, ever spend.
Win-win. Everyone wins.
gb,
It’s not easy to exterminate 2,000,000 people. The most economic way is to starve them to death, but this can rebound on the starver, to the eventual benefit of the starvees.
Nuclear bombs are probably not cost effective. One of the Hiroshima survivors was only 300 m away from “ground zero” when the blast occurred, but was behind a brick wall. Still alive at 90 years of age in 2023. Lots of concrete rubble in Gaza provides lots of shelter, unlike the highly combustible suburbs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, mainly single story timber construction suitable for earthquake zones.
Of course, trying to avoid blast effects and radioactive fallout from affecting Israeli citizens might be difficult. All in all, not so easy, this genocide business.
The other problem could be that survivors might not take kindly to attempted extermination, and might bide their time, hoping for a chance to exterminate the exterminators. I’m sure the politicians involved (and their advisers) think they can foresee the future. The eventual “winners” will certainly claim they did. The “losers” will probably claim they “should have” won, but the “winners” did not play fair.
All pretty stupid, isn’t it? No doubt I have to contribute to people I don’t know killing other people I don’t know – often at great expense. There are much cheaper ways – just use things like swords, javelins and spears. About the battle of Canae, Polybius writes that of the Roman and allied infantry, 70,000 were killed, 10,000 captured, and “perhaps” 3,000 survived.
Of course, the Carthaginians cheated by having troops who could throw rocks at the Romans – how devious was that?
One day only. So much for modern technology! How long has it taken to kill 35,000, and at what cost?
I prefer a quiet life.
–gb,
Its not easy to exterminate 2,000,000 people. The most economic way is to starve them to death, but this can rebound on the starver, to the eventual benefit of the starvees.–
I don’t think that in history that a lot of terrorists have been killed by starvation.
But if there is 2 million terrorist- who are eager to go the heaven- it could easier. But the “35,000 people” so far killed, seems to indicate, there probably isn’t that many.
Observations can lead you to make guesses about why you see what you see.
Reproducible experiments show whether your guesses might be correct – or completely wrong!
As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
No amount of discussion about gravitational waves can prove anything at all. Nor can any amount of discussion about a GHE – which can’t even be observed! How crazy is that?
What is the GHE supposed to do? Make objects hotter? Colder? Do nothing at all?
What a load of codswallop – pseudoscientific slop, eagerly consumed by the ignorant and gullible! Unfortunately, as Feynman said “Nature cannot be fooled.” I agree.
No GHE. Not even a tiny one.
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://tinyurl.com/mike-appeals-to-einstein
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://tinyurl.com/mike-goes-feynman
Willard, please stop trolling.
The GHE and AGW are like space and time…neither is there.
Flynnson repeats his usual distortions:
Flynnson gave proof that there’s a GHE a while back, which I pointed out at the time.
He keeps waffling away from his agreement, as if he didn’t write it. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and it provides a perfect example of the GHG as the WV concentration changes day to day.
Swanson, it appears YOU are the one distorting.
You can’t provide a viable definition/description of the bogus GHE, just like you can’t provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You have NO science, only your cult beliefs.
Here, Puffman –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
What’s an energy balance model, again?
Keep proving me right, silly willy.
I can take it….
Puffman, I appreciate you attempting to illustrate how cranks seal themselves in silly Kafka traps. You got serious talent at that, like imagining you’re more than a random guy doing IT menial work.
My theory is that you can’t accept having got banned so many times. The more sock puppets you came up with, the more benign you become.
Keep proving me right, child.
I can take it….
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“My theory is that you cant accept having got banned so many times”
You obviously have no idea what “theory” means in a scientific context.
You claim that someone named “Puffman” can’t accept having been “banned”. Maybe you are simply annoyed that Dr Spencer has not appointed you blog moderator, and instead, allows people to comment at his pleasure, not yours.
Accept reality, Willard. You are both impotent and incompetent. You can’t ban anybody. You cannot describe the GHE, and your efforts at annoying other commenters seem ineffectual.
Freedom of expression is not such a bad thing, you know. The trial and excommunication of Galileo for having an opinion did not suppress a single fact out of existence, did it?
So carry on, Willard, ban as many people as you can (that would be none, would it?). You still can’t describe the GHE. So sad, too bad.
ES,
At your link, you stated that some imaginary commenter named “Flynnson” described the GHE.
Maybe you refer to this –
“More WV, slower cooling, less WV, faster cooling.
The process is almost identical for CO2, exce3pt that the CO2 concentration is only moving slowly upward.”
Are you really agreeing that increased amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere result in cooling, not heating?
Or are you being really, really, stupid, and claiming that a slow rate of cooling is actually heating?
No wonder you can’t actually describe the mythical GHE, but instead appeal to the authority of people who point out that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years!
Even Bindidon accepts that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does not result in surface heating! He rightly describes that idea as “nonsense”. He’s obviously more connected to reality than you.
Go on, describe the GHE. You can’t, can you? That’s because you are a fanatical GHE cultist.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, using appropriate facts to support your disagreement.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Puffman is the person I call “Puffman.”
Just like you, he’s a silly sock puppet.
“Puffman is the person I call Puffman.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
“Puffman” is the name. Puffman is the person.
Please mind your copy-pasting.
Silly sock puppet!
“”Puffman” is the name. Puffman is the person.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Better.
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Worse.
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Flynnson still doesn’t get it, writing;
As he keeps pointing out, during a typical day, the sun’s energy warms the surface and lower atmosphere. Over night, the surface tends to cool, losing energy to deep space.
The average temperature is the result of both processes and the slower cooling rate with lots of WV results in a higher average temperature, other things being equal. With less WV, the cooling rate with clear skys increases, which can result in lower temperatures when averaged over 24 hours. Of course, weather is more complicated than that, with vertical convection and clouds thrown in.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
There Is No Impending Mini Ice Age
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/
“Through its lifetime, the Sun naturally goes through changes in energy output. Some of these occur over a regular 11-year period of peak (many sunspots) and low activity (fewer sunspots), which are quite predictable.
But every so often, the Sun becomes quieter for longer periods of time, experiencing much fewer sunspots and giving off less energy. This is called a “Grand Solar Minimum,” and the last time this happened, it coincided with a period called the “Little Ice Age” (a period of extremely low solar activity from approximately AD 1650 to 1715 in the Northern Hemisphere, when a combination of cooling from volcanic aerosols and low solar activity produced lower surface temperatures).
….
But if such a Grand Solar Minimum occurred, how big of an effect might it have? In terms of climate forcing a factor that could push the climate in a particular direction solar scientists estimate it would be about -0.1 W/m2, the same impact of about three years of current carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration growth.
Thus, a new Grand Solar Minimum would only serve to offset a few years of warming caused by human activities.
What does this mean? The warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels is six times greater than the possible decades-long cooling from a prolonged Grand Solar Minimum.”
If you are in an Ice Age, and we are in an Ice Age.
What exactly is Mini Ice Age, when you have been in an Ice Age for millions of years???
gb…please stop quoting the alarmist science deniers at NASA. The same NASA told us 2014 was the hottest year ever based on a 38% likelihood they were telling the truth.
Up in the thread:
— April 6, 2024 at 10:09 AM
Bindidon says:
April 6, 2024 at 3:43 AM
gbaikie
Who apart from Zharkova is predicting any Grand Solar Minimum?
Who? —
And I was wondering who.
But, anyhow here story about solar wind on other stars:
–Stellar Winds Coming From Other Stars Measured for the First Time
An international research team led by the University of Vienna has made a major breakthrough. In a study recently published in Nature Astronomy, they describe how they conducted the first direct measurements of stellar wind in three Sun-like star systems. Using X-ray emission data obtained by the ESAs X-ray Multi-Mirror-Newton (XMM-Newton) of these stars astrospheres, they measured the mass loss rate of these stars via stellar winds. The study of how stars and planets co-evolve could assist in the search for life while also
helping astronomers predict the future evolution of our Solar System.–
https://www.universetoday.com/166626/stellar-winds-coming-from-other-stars-measured-for-the-first-time/#more-166626
For those who love to doubt anything they can’t scientifically contradict – in this case, the equality of the speeds of light and gravitation
https://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-speed-of-gravity.html
Samuel’s paper
On the Speed of Gravity and the v/c Corrections to the Shapiro Time Delay
Stuart Samuel, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (2003)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0304006.pdf
Abstract
Using a relatively simple method, I compute the v/c correction to the gravitational time delay for light passing by a massive object moving with speed v.
It turns out that the v/c effects are too small to have been measured in the recent experiment involving Jupiter and quasar J0842+1845 that was used to measure the speed of gravity.
*
Have some fun!
Now apply that to Newtonian calculations with regard to orbits.
Stop using your usual superficial suggestions to tell others what to do, Blindsley H00d.
Do it yourself and present us your results instead.
I get a result that suggests that the new Newtonian calculation does not need ANY correction to provide the observed orbit for Mercury. So Einstein’s ‘correction’ is not needed.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-general-relativity-clarify-about-mercury
Bumbling Bobby,
Linking to forums with differing opinions from commenters just makes you look like a stupid person trying to appear clever.
Please stop trolling.
bob d…Richard (rlh) is right, any problems with Mercury’s orbit can be worked out using Newtonian mechanics. Heck, you could work it out yourself if you understood the problem clearly and had the required equations, which are simply applications of relative motion.
The Mercury problem began as an apparent retrograde motion which made Mercury appear to move backwards when viewed from Earth at certain view points. The basis of the illusion is the same illusion that makes us see the Sun as rising in the East and setting in the West.
I don’t understand why some feel that Einsteinian relativity theory, that relies on the ratio of the velocity of a mass to the velocity of light, can be the only means of solving the problem.
Gordon,
It’s not the retrograde motion of Mercury, it is the calculation and observation of the precesion of Mercury’s elliptical orbit.
Using Newtons laws gives the wrong answer, using the relativistic calculations ala Einstein gives a better answer.
Swenson,
You have not demonstrated that you know what you are talking about.
“You have not demonstrated that you know what you are talking about.”
Bumbling bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson,
I’m not interested in your philosophical diversions and suppositions. You are free to philosophyze to your heart’s content, but I only care about scientifically tested observables.
Putting a bow on my previous comment using your example of the Moon’s orbit:
v= 2*pi*r/delta t; is the Moon’s speed at any given point on the orbit, with direction tangent to the orbit, and r being the distance from the Moon to the center of the Earth.
Centripetal acceleration= a= delta v/delta t = v^2/r, as I previously described.
Centripetal force= F= G*M*m/r^2= m*a; where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, and m is the mass of the Moon, can be simplified to F= m*v^2/r.
With these vectors represented, you can visually see how they relate to each other and to the Moon’s orbit.
Experience tells me that by your extensive comment you are trying to convince yourself rather than me or anybody else.
Ark, I appreciate you attempting to teach Gordon some science, but he can’t learn. He’s got serious mental issues, like imagining he’s an engineer.
My theory is that his therapist told him to rant here for therapeutic reasons. The more nonsense Gordon spews here, the less likely he is to hurt himself.
You are still applying the math incorrectly, and you should be worried since Clint is now supporting you. Even at that, you cannot apply your math to the Moon’s motion well enough to prove anything. I notice that Clint offered only a hit and run ad hom rather than trying to explain his objection.
Tangential velocity has no delta t in the denominator since velocity is a differential and delta t is a larger scale interval. If I infer a delta x along the x-axis, I means X2 – X1, a finite interval. However dx/dt represents a differential quantity which has no interval.
Such a consideration (delta t) would apply only if the Moon continued along a tangential line. If you used dx/dt, you’d have to integrate over time intervals. Even at that, the delta t would indicate speed, not velocity. As an instantaneous motion on a curve, velocity requires a different quantity, like ds/dt.
You are thinking in terms of up and down, or vertical. A centripetal force, hence a centripetal acceleration acts in that manner, toward an axis along a radial line. That’s what a = v^2/r infers, centripetal acceleration along a vertical radial line from Earth COG.
So, if there has been a centripetal acceleration there has to have been a centripetal displacement, at least partly (radial component) in the vertical direction. Not only that, the motion has to have changed exponentially since acceleration is a change of displacement twice-removed.
That does not happen in the lunar orbit, any change in the vertical direction is linear with a rate of about 5 m vertically for every 8000 m horizontally. That is the action of a body moving through a field and being diverted by the field, and cannot be claimed as a true radial acceleration.
We must not forget the other element in lunar motion, the Moon’s linear momentum/velocity.
Consider this. If there was even the slightest vertical movement of the Moon toward the Earth along such a vertical radial line, that distance could never be recovered and cumulatively, over the centuries the Moon would lose altitude every day. That in itself rules out any vertical displacement due to vertical acceleration.
ark…”Experience tells me that by your extensive comment you are trying to convince yourself rather than me or anybody else”.
***
If you asked me I would tell you. Between university and now I have had the good fortunate of extensively reading into the work of Jiddu Krishnamurti. His name suggests he was an Indian ascetic or into religion/philosophy, but he was neither. His work was solely about examining the relationship between thought and intelligence and in that direction he attracted big name scientists for discussion like physicist David Bohm.
K. had a no bs. way of talking that impressed me. He stated fact, he called ‘what is’, in such a manner there was no way of disputing it. I know what you’ll challenge, that I am simply following an authority figure. However, the basis of his work is that you find your own truth. He did not preach and he did not ask you to accept anything he said, but to find out for yourself.
I have been in the science field long enough to understand that only a fuhl would take the work of eminent scientists and try to debunk their work based solely on my own differing opinion. I am not ego-driven, I have no desire of being contradictory to satisfy my own insecurities or to enhance an image. In fact, image and its non-reality was a foundation of K.’s work. Personally, I have no further use for an image or to protect one, I think self-image is nonsense.
My questioning of certain scientific truths began with a questioning of time. K. claimed that time is a product of thought and that thought and time are one and the same. Often he would declare that ‘time is thought and thought is time’. Physicist David Bohm agreed with K. on that claiming at one point that human thought processes (the mind) invented time.
Essentially, by studying the work of K., I was opening up my awareness of the real world. Awareness is not a natural process of the human mind, it is something that comes provided one is willing to let go of ‘knowing’, or knowledge, and look anew. According to K., and David Bohm, awareness is a product of intelligence.
I am talking here of true intelligence, a natural fundamental process of the universe and not something that can be measured by a human intelligence test, which is essentially, a measure of artificial intelligence. No one has intelligence, all of us can only have it revealed to us provided we find a way to get our incredible egos out of the way.
That’s all I am trying to do in our current debate. I am trying to look at the problem directly and not to be influence by pat equations offered in a textbook.
I agree with what David Bohm said, that if an equation has no reality to back it, then it is garbage.
That’s why I question a = v^2/r. It’s an equation-based derivation, which I hope to go into later on Roy’s blog, a derivation that does not meet the requirements of the actual motions involved. Blindly applying the equation casts no light on the actual lunar motion.
It suggests the Moon is always falling toward Earth, and I think that is nonsense. The Moon is actually a body moving with a linear motion that has that motion bent into curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravity. There is no falling, rather there is a deviation, with no acceleration toward Earth at any time.
> His name suggests he was an Indian ascetic or into religion/philosophy, but he was neither.
Jiddu Krishnamurti (/ˈdʒɪduː ˌkrɪʃnəˈmʊərti/ JID-oo KRISH-nə-MOOR-tee; 11 May 1895 17 February 1986) was an Indian philosopher, speaker, writer, and spiritual figure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti
Yes Gordon, feel free to clog the blog for your much needed therapy.
No one wants to see you hurt yourself….
— gbaikie says:
April 13, 2024 at 12:57 PM
It might be better to live in low gravity world and Mars could be better place to live than Earth. … —
Or as I realized recently, Mars might be a good place to store nuclear waste,
I have long thought the Moon would a good place, but Mars could be better for number of reasons.
Some people have argued that rockets aren’t safe enough- and it’s a somewhat reasonable argument, particularly if you say rockets at the moment aren’t safe enough.
But in the future, millions of people per year could flying on rocket instead of on airlines.
Though one could say no airplane is safe enough. And it’s possible rockets could safer than any airplane. The most dangerous aspect of flying airplanes, is the take off and landing parts of the flight.
Another aspect is the people in the plane, deliberately or accidentally causing an accident.
In the past, launching stuff into orbit, has been very expensive.
At the moment, it’s the cheapest, it’s ever been, and it’s reasonable to think that within decade, it could be lot cheaper.
So, we are at about $1000 per kg to low earth orbit, and we could get to about $10 per kg to low earth orbit.
And it could get even cheaper than this, particularly in regards to getting further than just low earth orbit.
So, in terms shipping nuclear waste off world, it’s in the context, of much “different reality”.
One aspect is rockets are built with a low safety factor- because they cost more, otherwise. And one can built them to have higher safety factor and therefore they cold cost twice as much, but twice as much as $10 per kg to orbit, is in very cheap compared to now.
Also a significant part of cost of $1000 per kg to LEO, is the launching site costs which part of this.
This one reason I talk about what call a pipelauncher, but there are other ways of launching rocket. And pipelauncher is merely a cheap way to go in the direction of such other ways of doing it.
But as general thing, to get to low cost rocket launches, you will need to launch rocket from the ocean. And it’s been done, but it hasn’t really begun to be a thing.
Uranium can be recycled. Expensive but possible. And 98% of the energy is still present in depleted fuel rods.
Flying nuclear ‘waste’ off planet is wasteful.
“China is developing new nuclear system to power moon base expected to be up and running by 2028”
NASA is planning on using nuclear power for Lunar and Mars bases.
The spacecrafts which are currently leaving our solar system use nuclear power.
Many other spacecraft have been also be powered with nuclear power.
What is better or less wasteful, sending 10 tons nuclear fuel or 5000 tons of nuclear waste to Mars?
This related to idea of mining Mars ice, rather than mining Mars liquid water.
Now if ship nuclear waste from Earth, it will need to be encased so one handle it, and for possible accidents.
On Mars you can use the waste material itself and what encases it- nothing is wasted. You don’t need to reprocess it. But at some point in time, one might re-process it, order to make fuel for a nuclear reactor {and/or other uses of various material in radioactive waste].
So, on Mars, you not trying to get rid of it, and get rid of it so it can be stored safely for centuries. Instead you going to use immediately and use it for centuries.
Ken
” Uranium can be recycled. Expensive but possible. ”
*
What planet do you actually live on?
Never heard of Hanford, Savannah River, Marcoule, La Hague, Sellafield (renamed Windscale due to scandalous contamination), Majak, Tarapur, Tokai and a few other sites?
*
” And 98% of the energy is still present in depleted fuel rods. ”
Oh, please tell us more about your 98%! I’m all ears and very excited about your detailed explanations.
But caution: don’t tell me you mean with ‘energy’ all the U238 contained in these depleted rods :–)
Wrong translation; should read
… Windscale (renamed Sellafield due to scandalous contamination) …
Binny,
From US Dept of Energy (Office of Nuclear Energy) –
“SPENT FUEL CAN BE RECYCLED
Thats right!
Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts.
More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor.”
Who to believe?
binny…”Never heard of Hanford, Savannah River, Marcoule, La Hague, Sellafield (renamed Windscale due to scandalous contamination), Majak, Tarapur, Tokai and a few other sites?”
***
There are 440 nuclear reactors working well around the planet. So, let’s claim 10 malfunctioning sites with different degrees of issues. That means 10/440 = 2.3% are having issues.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
Nuclear technology is relatively new as far as reactors go, I am sure they will eventually reduce that 2.3% considerably as technology improves.
The point is, we are wasting trillions of dollars on a science-fiction guess about climate change when we could be investing that money in nuclear technology.
Flynnson
How interesting to note that by some miracle you behave 100% opposite to your usual modus vivendi, by suddenly agreeing with a state opinion and therefore repeating what they tell you in a gullible and credulous manner.
Like all the other pseudo-skeptical guys on this blog, you agree with or reproduce anything that fits your irrational, selfish narrative.
Rien de nouveau à l'Ouest, ma foi.
Binny,
From US Dept of Energy (Office of Nuclear Energy)
“SPENT FUEL CAN BE RECYCLED
Thats right!
Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts.
More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor.”
Who to believe?
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 364.0 km/sec
density: 2.35 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 14 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 115
https://www.spaceweather.com/
“New sunspot AR3637 is crackling with impulsive M-class solar flares.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 161 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.73×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.4% Low
7 numbered sunspot, 2 spots haven’t numbered. More than a day before
3628 goes to farside. Or tomorrow should have further increase in sunspot number.
3634 is large spot, the largest on nearside. It’s furthest northern spot and past mid point {about week before it goes to farside}.
Solar wind
speed: 328.3 km/sec
density: 2.92 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 15 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 152
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 178 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.73×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.0% Low
10 numbered spots. 3628 going to farside. A small not numbered yet spot coming from farside.
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
15 April – 11 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
walter…”I agree. The UN is a radical organization and a sock puppet of China. Its not just the climate scam; its also the covid-19 pandemic. They kissed the ground China walked on by praising their response, even though the outbreak was their fault as it leaked from one of their labs”.
***
testing
The real shame is that the Wuhan scientists did not offer proof of a virus, they only regurgitated the new fake science that certain strings of RNA found in the lungs of victims were produced by a virus. There is no proof whatsoever that the RNA is from a virus and not some other condition in the infected area.
The inflammation in the lungs of victims is a sign of pneumonia. In fact, people dying of covid are dying of pneumonia. Although covid seems more virulent in that instance, many people die from pneumonia produced by the common flu.
Based on the report from the Wuhan scientists in January 2020, a German scientist, Christian Drosten, produced a test for covid that is based on the RNA-PCR test already used for HIV. The WHO did not ask for peer review or any other input, they immediately rushed out his test which the US CD.C immediately adop.ted as well.
Drosten is also responsible for the nonsense that people showing no symp.toms could be carrying the infection. He based that on one Asian woman in Grmany who appeared to have no symp.toms but tested positive. The information was stifled that she had been treated with antivirals, an indication she had already been infected and likely still was. That claim put immense pressure on unvaccinated people to get vaccinated.
However, it is the root of the RNA-PCR test that is in question. It dates back to the tests performed by Luc Montagnier leading up to his alleged discovery of an HIV virus. Montagnier initially followed the guidelines from the Louise Pasteur Institute that were the gold stand for virus identification at the time in 1983.
The LPI protocol specified that a suspected virus be isolated by mixing it in a sugar solution that had been prepared with a density gradient then centrifuging the solution. That caused any virus particles to migrate to a sugar density level typical for a virus density. The suspected viral material was then viewed with an electron microscope and any virus present had to be prominent and measure a certain diameter.
When Montagnier’s team thought they had isolated a virus they followed that EM protocol. However, when the centrifuged material was viewed on an EM, no virus was visible. I think Montagnier should have abandoned the viral theory following that failure but he persisted. He was trained in retrovirus theory, so he applied that theory to his search for a cause for AIDS.
Retroviral theory was only 13 years old at the time and an early pioneer had warned against inter.preting RNA found in a sample as being from a virus. He reasoned that RNA is so common in the human body that inferring a virus from it was risky. Guess what Montagnier did? He inferred HIV from RNA.
And guess what, that dumb theory has replaced the tried and trued method using an electron microscope. Both Drosten and the Wuhan scientists admitted freely they had not seen covid on an EM, they both inferred it based on Montagnier’s inference re HIV. Even Montagnir freely admitted he did not discover HIV, and that he’d inferred it.
But here’s the clincher. Kary Mullis invented the PCR method for DNA amplification. Since no one could find HIV on an electron microscope, it was hypothesized the reason was due to so little HIV virus being there. So, rocket scientists like Anthony Fauci figured the PCR test would amplify it, but they needed a virus to amplify. Guess what, they used the same RNA inferred by Montagnier to be from a virus.
Mullis set them straight. He told them PCR could not amplify viral DNA if an EM could not see the virus. He told them that PCR amplifies everything equally and if a virus could not be seen on an EM it would sill be hidden in the amplified DNA. Of course Fauci told him he was wrong and after that Mullis openly called him a liar on many occasions. Guess Fauci didn’t have the courage to sue the guy who invented the PCR method.
> Kary Mullis invented the PCR method for DNA amplification.
in February 1999, the patent of Hoffman-La Roche (United States Patent No. 4,889,818) was found by the courts to be unenforceable, after Dr. Thomas Kunkel testified in the case Hoffman-La Roche v. Promega Corporation[36] on behalf of the defendants (Promega Corporation) that “prior art” (i.e. articles on the subject of Taq polymerase published by other groups prior to the work of Gelfand and Stoffel, and their patent application covering the purification of Taq polymerase) existed, in the form of two articles, published by Alice Chien et al. in 1976,[37] and A. S. Kaledin et al. in 1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#Accreditation_of_the_PCR_technique
We all know that Covid and HIV don’t exist but kill people anyway. /sarc
What property of electrons is used in the design of an electron microscope?
Some people know that pictures are not that good in identifying species.
Sorry Gordon, you are not up to date as usual.
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote –
“What property of electrons is used in the design of an electron microscope?”
Don’t you know? Why are you asking Gordon? Does he have knowledge about electrons tha5 you lack?
Or are you just trying to be annoying?
It’s not the property of the electrons in an EM, it’s the deviation of the electron, or the transmittance of it, by atoms in a substance under study appearing on a screen behind the substance.
Here’s a good video on both a TEM and an SEM. The only error is in the claim that electrons have a frequency. That contradicts the fact given later that electron beams are amplified by a magnetic field dispersion and not a lens. Electrons will not travel through a glass lens. Don’t believe me, they won’t go through the glass on a CRT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DnnxvS6BBQ&ab_channel=BranchEducation
Gordon,
I was asking what property of electrons is used in the design of an electron microscope.
What has the function of a cathode ray tube have to do with an electron microscope?
See the evidence that electrons exhibit wave behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave
“I was asking what property of electrons is used in the design of an electron microscope.”
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Don’t copy DREMPTY, it’s not a good look.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A very detailed computation with a comparison between the classical and the relativistic solution: The Precession of Mercurys Perihelion.
https://sites.math.washington.edu//~morrow/papers/Genrel.pdf
Source: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/814/how-do-you-calculate-the-anomalous-precession-of-mercury
Done with calculations that conclude that the orbital parameters are based on r not what they really are.
And?
So the previous calculations are wrong.
And as always, Blindsley H00d posts with a remark letting him appear at a first glance knowledgeable, but which in fact is superficial, empty of any proof, hence absolutely non-committing.
So you think that any re-calculation on the actual orbital distance changes nothing?
Which calculations?
The difference between r and the actual distance (based on where things seem to be as opposed to where they actually are).
And the offset that being in an orbit will create as to the extra torque on the planet. You know, creating a pression of that orbit based on where things actually are as opposed to where they appear to be.
So just armwaving.
So you continue to think that putting different figures into the calculations will not cause any difference in the outcome.
So you continue to think that putting different figures into the calculations will make the discrepancy between the respective predictions made by Newtonian physics and general relativity disappear.
“So you continue to . . .”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“you continue to think that putting different figures into the calculations”
Are you saying that different figures will produce the same results? Remember that Newton though that the speed of gravity was infinite.
Are you saying that if you change Newton’s theory so that it cohere with general relativity it shows that there never was any problem with Newton’s theory in the first place?
Willard
Thanks for Owen Biesel’s paper which, in opposition to many others, clearly explain the unavoidable uncertainty context of his relativistic path, pretty fairly explained in the Remarks section).
*
Typical for boasters a la RLH is that they dare to write
” So the previous calculations are wrong. ”
without being even a bit able to sustain their incredibly brazen claim, neither by showing any scientific paper contradicting Biesel, let alone to present themselves such a contradiction.
**
Some scientific contradictions to Einstein’s 43 arc seconds exist – no one of us posting on this blog knows how valuable they are, however.
Let’s begin with a strange paper claiming in the same paragraph that Newton’s laws still are best to explain the precession – but if and only if they are ‘enhanced’ by rotational and gravitational time dilation effects, ha ha:
The secret of planets’ perihelion between Newton and Einstein
Christian Corda (2021)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212686421000650
For some geniuses, this is like falling from Einstein’s frying pan into Lorentz’s fire :–)
*
A much more serious approach, which by the way shows how many definitions of ‘time’ exist, and how much it matters to compare different precession evaluations on the base of the very same ‘time’, a bit like temperature anomaly comparisons make sense if and only if they were constructed out of the mean of the same reference period:
Comparing Relativistic Theories Against Observed Perihelion Shifts of Icarus and Mercury
Steven D. Deines (2017)
https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/ijamtp.20170303.14
*
No one should wonder that Mr Deines gave one of the most profound explanations for the necessity to consider SR and GR effects when implementing GPS:
Relativity Compensation for a Space-Based GPS Receiver
Steven D. Deines (1992)
https://www.ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=4612
and lots of similar papers, unfortunately all behind paywall or subscription.
*
Finally, there are some apparently knowledgeable people who dissected Einstein’s approach and disagreed with his results, among them Anatoli Vankov:
Einsteins Paper: ‘Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory’
Anatoli Andrei Vankov (2015)
https://etienneklein.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Relativit%C3%A9-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale.pdf
Most amazing is Schwarzschild’s reaction to Einstein’s paper (see section 2 on page 13):
Letter from K Schwarzschild to A Einstein dated 22 December
1915
Wow wow.
Different figures will produce different results. Of course Blinny does not think so.
The difference between Einstein’s relativity and that of Newton is that Einstein’s theory is a fudged theory based on the redefinition of time. Einstein, based on Lorentz, has used a multiplier (1 – v^2/c^2) applied to time. It is a fudge factor in the sense that time has no existence and is defined based on the rotational period of the Earth. The second is defined based on a small fraction of that period yet Lorentz and Einstein felt it scientific to redefine that second based on the speed of a mass compared to the speed of light. They had no right to do that.
I would like to see the actual derivation for the Mercury precession related to Einstein’s relativity equations. I don’t see how they apply.
Maybe Binny could explain it, since he seems keen on defending Einstein against Newton, a superior scientists in every way.
> I would like to see
Step 2 – Sammich Request
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Different figures will produce the same results. /sarc
That Blindsley H00d neither understood what I wrote nor why, let alone read the articles presented: that was 100% expected.
A few absolutely non-committing, superficial ‘thoughts’ are, as usual, enough.
This is a good example of robertson-ing instead of reason-ing.
Blinny still doesn’t get that different figures in an equation will produce different results.
Blinny also still doesn’t get that having a distance that varies from r to one that is longer than r will make the outcome look like gravity is getting smaller, just as Einstein’s calculations say that it will. In direct difference to the orbital speed compared to the speed to light/gravity. Try using a Pythagorean distance rather than a simple one.
There is a DETERMINISTIC relationship between the planet spin (N), the planet average surface specific heat (cp), the planet Corrected Effective Temperature (Te.correct) and the satellite measured planet average surface temperature (Tsat).
(Tsat) /(Te.correct) = (β*N*cp)^1/16
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Strange Layer of Venus Surprisingly Cold
By Space.com Staff published October 1, 2012
https://www.space.com/17850-venus-atmosphere-cold-layer.html
“Venus may be closer to the sun than Earth, but its typically hellish atmosphere has a surprisingly cold layer that’s chillier than any part of our own planet’s atmosphere, a new study reveals.
This region may be cool enough for carbon dioxide snow or ice to form, according to new observations from Europe’s Venus Express satellite. This is surprising for a planet with normally oven-hot temperatures, scientists say.
“The finding is very new and we still need to think about and understand what the implications will be,” Hkan Svedhem, Venus Express project scientist at the European Space Agency, said in a statement today (Oct. 1).”
Old news, of course.
Something newer:
NOVEMBER 8, 2023 REPORT
Presence of atomic oxygen confirmed on both day and night sides of Venus
by Bob Yirka , Phys.org
“A multi-institutional team of astrophysicists from Germany has made the first direct observation of oxygen atoms in the day side atmosphere of Venus. In their project, reported in the journal Nature Communications, the group studied data from the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy, (SOFIA), the airplane-based reflecting telescope, to learn more about elements and molecules in Venus’s atmosphere.
Planetary scientists have long suspected that the atomic form of oxygen exists in Venus’ atmosphere on both the day and night sides. While high levels of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide have been measured in the planet’s atmosphere, finding evidence of oxygen in its elemental form has proven more challenging due to its reactivityit tends to bind quickly to other elements it encounters.”
…
“The research team also suggests that atomic oxygen in Venus’s atmosphere likely has a cooling effect on the planetwhen single oxygen atoms collide with other molecules, such as carbon dioxide, energy is transferred to the molecule, which is then radiated away. The result is a cooling of the upper layers of the Venusian atmosphere.”
Hmm. It seems it cools on Venus, but warms on Earth
oh, yeah:
https://phys.org/news/2023-11-presence-atomic-oxygen-day-night.html
Maybe because there is more atomic oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere.
Which leads to me to wonder, why not put a permanent balloon at north pole at same elevation we measure global CO2 levels. And measure global CO2 levels.And measure other stuff.
NASA could count it, as needed exercise, to test balloon exploration of Venus.
Maybe, that is what Chinese was doing with those balloons.
China might imagine there are in space race, putting crewed balloons on Venus, wins that race.
A long time ago, I said Venus is fortress planet. Or in terms of military matter, very important.
Christos, it is as clear as the Sun. Rotation corrects temperature extremes.
Every second of slowing or accelerating rotation will result in changes in global average temperature.
Thank you, Ireneusz,- for your response.
“Rotation corrects temperature extremes.”
–
Exactly, rotation corrects temperature extremes.
–
Also, the faster a planet rotates, the more solar energy a planet accumulates.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s obvious, Ren. The problem is that solar input happens almost instantaneously whereas it takes more time for radiation to dissipate the heat created by solar radiation. That lag results in a warming effect.
If a planet is turning faster, it has less time to warm via solar radiation and less time to dissipate the heat from specific areas.
EM energy doesn’t transport heat. When EM energy interacts with matter, EM energy gets
1). reflected
2). transformed into IR outgoing EM energy
3). some quantity of EM, in the process of transformation into IR, some quantity of EM energy becomes heat, because the transformation from SW into IR is not perfect.
So, some of the EM energy, inevitably becomes heat, which heat is accumulated in inner layers and gets in time transformed into IR emission, but in much lower LW.
******
When planet rotates faster, when surface having higher (N*cp), because the surface specific heat (cp) plays a role too, the SW into IR transformation is less perfect, and, consequently, the more EM energy becomes heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
But in the end, the abs.orbed input must equal the output to keep the planet at a nearly steady temperature.
But your analysis doesnt satisfy that requirement, Christos.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1661503
Peaceful bonobos bite and push each other, actually
https://www.popsci.com/environment/bonobos-aggressive/
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“They found that the male bonobos aggressive more frequently than chimpanzees. Overall, bonobos engaged in 2.8 times more aggressive interactions and three times as many physical aggressions than chimpanzees.”
..
–The self-domestication hypothesis
These new findings of higher rates of male-male aggression in bonobos contradict a prevailing hypothesis in primate behavior called the self-domestication hypothesis. This idea that goes back as far as Charles Darwin posits that evolution has selected against aggression in bonobos and humans, but not chimpanzees. —
Gordon Robertson: continuing with your example of the Moon’s orbit…
There is no debate. Centripetal force and centripetal acceleration are settled science.
“… I question a = v^2/r. It’s an equation-based derivation”
The centripetal acceleration equation (ac= v^2/r) can be derived (1) by using geometry of the Moon’s motion along its orbit, (2) by using vectors, or (3) from experimental measurements. The fact that you believe that it “ does not meet the requirements of the actual motions involved,” only proves my point that your technical background is lacking.
It might be easier for you to understand ac if you instead use v= r*ω, where ω is the angular velocity, so that ac= (r*ω)^2/r= r*ω.
Either way, centripetal acceleration is higher at high speeds and sharp turns. That’s intuitive, no?
ark…”It might be easier for you to understand ac if you instead use v= r*ω”
***
Centripetal acceleration must be in the direction of gravitational force, meaning it acts directly toward Earth’s centre along a radial line. When a force is applied on an angle, we can break the vector in component parts to find the component acting radially. However, centripetal force wrt gravity always acts along a radial line toward Earth’s centre. Therefore centripetal acceleration must act radially toward Earth. Actually, acceleration does not act, it is the result of a force, which does act.
You seem to be proposing that this radial acceleration is related to a change of velocity tangentially. Let’s look at the angular velocity, w (sorry I don’t have the html for omega). It is the rate at which a radius vector, or phasor, turns per second. If that rate is constant, then the end point on the orbit must be turning with a constant velocity as well.
I saw a good derivation for a = v^2/r that did not rely solely on manipulating an equation. I was going to post a drawing on imgur but it appears you need to me a member and I did not have time to go through the rigamarole of signing up. So, I’ll describe a simple illustration.
Take a radial line on the x-y axis with tail at 0,0. It’s arrow tip is at y = 5. Draw a tangent line perpendicular to the tip at y = 5, to represent a tangential velocity vector representing the instantaneous velocity of a mass at that point. The mass, with the radial vector, is rotating CCW in a circle.
We want to follow what happens to the velocity vector as the current radial vector rotates a few degrees. So we move the radial vector to 11 o’clock. Note that there is now an angle, theta, between the two radial vectors. That same angle is the angle through which the velocity vector has changed direction, but nothing as changed with the magnitude of either. r-bar (meaning vector) and v-bar as still of the same magnitudes.
To verify that, suppose the radial vector has moved through 5 degrees from 12 o’clock to 11 o’clock. If the radial vector moves through 360 degrees, then the velocity tangential vector will re-orient through 360 degrees. That’s what spinners are incorrectly calling a rotation of the Moon on a local axis.
Anyway…go back to the original radial vector with the tangential velocity vector at 12 o’clock. Extend the tangential velocity vector line a fair amount. Now go to the new radial position at 11 o’clock and extend that radial vector till it meets the extended tangential velocity vector line. There is a small difference in length between the new velocity vector length, along the new radial line, and the old radial length.
What I am talking about is the displacement of the tip of the original velocity vector from its original tangential direction, to the position of the new tangential vector. In other words, the distance being described is the change in the velocity vector direction between 12 and 11 o’clock, measured from the tip of the radial vector to the line extended from the original tangential vector extension.
It is that change of direction of the tangential velocity vector that is being claimed as an acceleration, and I am calling bs., mainly because no change in the velocity vector’s magnitude has occurred. In other words, you cannot change the rate of change of position by changing the direction alone. You must add a force to change the velocity.
You confirmed my objection by introducing w, the angular velocity vector. If the aforementioned radial vectors at 12 o’clock is turning at a constant velocity, that is, w is a constant, there can be no acceleration. You simply cannot claim a change in vector direction as an acceleration, if the referenced radial vector is rotating at a constant rate.
Let’s apply this to the Moon, with a circular orbit specified. We have the same radial vector extending from Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre. We draw the same tangential velocity vector at the lunar COG and note that it is always attached to the the rotating radial vector at the same perpendicular angle. That means the tangential vector representing the instantaneous motion of the Moon cannot rotate about a centre yet the vector direction re-orients through 360 degrees wrt the stars per orbit.
Where is the radial centripetal acceleration described by a = v^2/r? The radial vector is rotating at a constant rate, it’s magnitude has not change, so where is this new acceleration? The r vector force is constant and the altitude of the Moon and it produces a constant acceleration. You cannot change that acceleration by considering the change in angle of a tangential velocity vector, even if it is attache to the r vector.
I have acknowledged a vertical deviation but I cannot accept that as a true acceleration, which requires an exponential change in direction per unit time.
The actual case with a slightly elliptical orbit is not much different. The variation in the radial gravity vector is so slight that it could not produce a significant centripetal acceleration.
“but I cannot accept that as a true acceleration”
Then you reject all of classical mechanics.
Not so, acceleration is defined as a rate of change of velocity. Or a exponential rate of change of position. With an orbiting body, orbiting at a constant velocity, there can be no rate of change of velocity, since it is constant.
“acceleration is defined as a rate of change of velocity” … and velocity is a vector. “Constant velocity” means constant MAGNITUDE and constant DIRECTION.
Since an orbit does not have constant direction, it does not have constant velocity.
Since it doesn’t have constant velocity, it has acceleration.
This is Physics 101.
And since a force is acting on the Moon, it is accelerating because Newton’s law: F=ma
Obviously, Tim never studied Phys 101. Forget about vectors for a second, they are not important unless you are trying to study the path of a mass in motion. Even then, they are not crucial, you can describe the motion without reference to vectors. The main reson we used vectors in engineering problem sets was to replace forces and the likes in freebody diagrams. Vectors unclutter a diagram to allow one to focus on the pertinent facts.
The thing to understand about curvilinear motion is that velocity is, of necessity, a differential quantity. Differential means instantaneous. If the curve is uniform, and the velocity is constant, you can generalize velocity over the curve. However, if it is changing randomly, you need to indicate that and section off the curve into areas where the velocity is relatively constant.
Even with rectilinear motion, you would not speak of the velocity of a mass unless the velocity was constant. Anytime a velocity was presented it was at a particular instant of time. At that instant, you wanted to know how the mass was moving. Was it moving with a constant velocity, or accelerating, and in which direction was it moving?
Therefore constant velocity does no imply both constant magnitude and constant direction. People sometimes get confused between a vector quantity representing a resultant and the components into which that vector can be broken. Those components can vary although they must always sum to the resultant vector. The direction, or angle a vector makes with the x-axis serves only to solve the components by using the sin and cos of an angle the vector makes with the x-axis.
I have already covered this and no one commented. If I have a radial vector rotating with a constant angular velocity, it is obvious that a tangential vector attached to its tip is changing its angle with the x-axis at the same rate the radial vector is changing angle. In fact both angles are equal at all times on a circle.
There is a huge difference in the interpretation of those changes however and unfortunately some people tend to leap to conclusions about it. The rate of change of angle is the actual angular velocity of the radial vector. The change in angle of the tangential velocity vector signifies nothing other than its orientation at a particular instant. The change in angle is NOT a change in velocity.
Same with the Moon. a tangential vector representing the COG of the Moon is not representative of rotation about that COG. It simply represents a change of orientation of the tangential vector wrt the stars and that motion is the same motion of curvilinear translation without local rotation.
bob…remember Newton’s conveniently forgotten stipulation to f = ma. He stated…”If a force can move a mass…then f = ma”.
He might have clarified that further because not all forces can change the velocity of a mass per unit time. If the inertia of a mass is too great, a force may get it moving but not accelerating.
“a force may get it moving but not accelerating.”
Ha! Gordon’s frequent gaffes are becoming even more humorous.
Gordon,
If a force gets something to move, when it was initially at rest, that’s an acceleration.
Comedy Gold.
Ball4, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
NASA document outlines selection of lunar rover companies
Jeff Foust April 15, 2024
https://spacenews.com/nasa-document-outlines-selection-of-lunar-rover-companies/
“WASHINGTON NASA documents show how the agency balanced cost, capabilities and experience in its selection of three companies to continue work on an Artemis lunar rover.
NASA selected proposals led by Intuitive Machines, Lunar Outpost and Venturi Astrolab for its Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Services program April 3. Each company received a task order to fund design work leading up to a preliminary design review.”
From article:
“Intuitive Machines had the lowest overall price, at $1.692 billion”
“Lunar Outpost fell in the middle in terms of both price, $1.727 billion”
“Astrolab had the highest mission suitability score of 905 but also the highest price, $1.928 billion”
And:
“She ultimately approved giving contracts to all three companies, concluding that the higher prices offered by Astrolab and Lunar Outpost were offset by their higher mission suitability scores. NASA, though, currently plans to select only one of the companies for a task order to develop and demonstrate its rover after completion of the preliminary design reviews.”
So, in theory only one will get the price {given above} but all 3 will get some it, and what do with that, will result into down selecting to just one, which might get full amount, if it actually is successful in doing it’s mission.
Of course NASA might not be able to select the one, as soon as plan, or can’t make up their mind, as fast as the they hope to do it.
So, they might down select 1 of them, give more funding to 2, and at some point, decide to go with 2, or be able to narrow it down to one.
Or NASA might get enough funding in future, and maybe not down select either of three. And/or later, pick more offers.
Or NASA did down selection to just SpaceX for for landing on the moon, but later they added back in the Blue Origin lunar lander {though there was also further negotiation involved, also}.
People are still discussing the moon. Try this: Does the moon behave like a satellite? Does an orbiting satellite rotate if the same side always faces earth?
Yes and yes.
Tim,
Indeed. Just as a rock on the ground “rotates” once every day.
What’s your point? Trying to avoid accepting the reality that you cannot describe the GHE?
Maybe you could opine about the general theory of relativity. What effect do you think it has on the GHE that you can’t describe?
[laughing at fanatical GHE cultist]
I can remember when Bill Clinton said that the nature of his statement to the Federal Judge in the Paula Jones matter depended on “what the definition of the word is, is”. In this case, we need to know the definition of the word rotate.
I hate to do this, but it is the most convenient reference I could find:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“Rotation or rotational motion is the circular movement of an object around a central line, known as axis of rotation.”
Further: “The special case of a rotation with an internal axis passing through the body’s own center of mass is known as a spin (or autorotation).[1] In that case, the surface intersection of the internal spin axis can be called a pole; for example, Earth’s rotation defines the geographical poles. A rotation around an axis completely external to the moving body is called a revolution (or orbit), e.g. Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The ends of the external axis of revolution can be called the orbital poles.”
From my perspective, the “center of rotation” of the moon is very close to axis of the earth.
Nah,
-The Moon’s orbit (revolution) is significantly elliptical, thus not a rotation, which is circular motion.
-It’s rotation is around an axis tilted @ 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis.
-Its orbital angular velocity varies considerably throughout the orbit, while its rotational angular velocity is constant throughout the orbit.
None of these facts align with the Moon rotating around the Earth.
Also from the same Wiki article:
“While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation, in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis.”
TIM S QUOTES: “Rotation or rotational motion is the circular movement of an object around a central line, known as axis of rotation.”
Draw a “central line” (aka “axis” aka “pole”) through the center of mass of the satellite. Each and every part of the satellite moves in a circle around that line. The satellite rotates around that pole.
“From my perspective, the “center of rotation” of the moon is very close to axis of the earth.”
The moon does NOT move in a circle around the earth, it moves in an ellipse. The moon does NOT rotate around the earth by your definition.
The moon DOES move in a circle about a “center of rotation” through the moon’s poles. The moon DOES rotate about that axis.
Test
There is a lot of spin (rotation?) going on here. People are mixing up my quotes with quotes taken from the Wikipedia link.
TS hates to rely on apophasis to hide what could be refuted were he to make an explicit point.
Tim S, Yes and no.
People are confused by the Moon issue because ancient astrologers had the belief that Moon was spinning. That false belief affects nothing, so the belief has never been corrected. NASA even supported it at one time, but now appears to be avoiding the discussion.
Orbiting satellites are launched without spin because they have antennas that need to face Earth at all times. If thy rotated about their COG, the antennas would be facing space half the time.
If a satellite didn’t rotate, it would face the same point in space all the time. For example, when the Hubble Space Telescope spends hours taking a time exposure image of one star or galaxy, it is not rotating. The end of the telescope always faces the same direction from the CoG.
Wrong again Folkerts, as usual.
You don’t understand orbital motion, so you make things up. That’s a well known cult tactic.
It’s also why you don’t have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. Everything you’ve made up has failed.
Now, your cult child can try to save you….
There are two proposed definitions of a “non-rotating satellite” in these discussions.
A non-rotating satellite could keep one part of the satellite (eg an antenna or a telescope) always facing:
a) the earth (the barycenter of the earth-moon system)
b) a particular star or galaxy
Deciding which is better comes down to Occam’s Razor — which more accurately and more simply describes a wide range of situations. The clear winner is (b), which can be used for circular orbits and elliptical orbits and non-orbiting objects as well. (a) can only be used for circular orbits.
Tim,
You wrote –
“The clear winner is (b), which can be used for circular orbits and elliptical orbits and non-orbiting objects as well. (a) can only be used for circular orbits.”
No celestial body has a circular orbit. According to me, NASA, Newton, and a host of others.
Trying to be clever by writing –
“There are two proposed definitions of a non-rotating satellite in these discussions.
A non-rotating satellite could keep one part of the satellite (eg an antenna or a telescope) always facing:
a) the earth (the barycenter of the earth-moon system)
b) a particular star or galaxy.”
results in you putting your foot in your mouth, then shooting yourself in the foot, metaphorically speaking.
Maybe you should stick to being silly about “adding fluxes”. You don’t really need to demonstrate how ignorant you can be in other areas as well, do you?
Where is Johannes Kepler when you need him. An orbit can be elliptical. More importantly, the path of the inner radius of the moon, the part facing earth is always less than the outer radius. That seems to defy the notion that the moon is rotating about its axis. The center of mass of the moon has a different path than both the inner and outer radius. The part of he moon facing earth always has a shorter path than the far side.
I will not lose sleep over the word games, but it is amusing to see people get all caught up in it. The moon is stable in its motion and predictable, so it really does not matter if people want to use their own personal definition of words like rotate, spin, orbit, etc.
Carry on.
Tim S
Now I get really surprised.
” More importantly, the path of the inner radius of the moon, the part facing earth is always less than the outer radius. That seems to defy the notion that the moon is rotating about its axis. ”
Your explanation reaches a level of simplicity equal to Clint R’s ‘viable model of orbiting without axial rotation’.
*
Do you understand by the way that you too now believe that Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and the hundreds of physicists, mathematicians and astronomers who have followed them to this day have all ‘failed to grasp the obvious’, as the lunar spin denier gang loves to write?
Are you really serious, Tim S? Or are you just kidding the blog?
I am amused at the people wanting to have their own definition of words that seem to have a common meaning. Nobody is denying the actual motion of the moon, just the word usage. By the way, if you read carefully, I have not taken any sides, or defendrd anyone’s usage. Hopefully, my comments read as inquisitive and questioning, since I have not taken a “side”, I certainly do not have to defend any other descriptions by any other person, even famous ones. I did reference Kepler and I will defend the notion that the word obit does not require a perfect circle.
Nice try with the strawman.
Here are some more questions for the mob: Does the moon have a Coriolis effect? Is their a definable centrifugal effect other than that opposing the gravitational centripetal effect from the earth?
Gegenfrage
Would Earth have a Coriolis effect if its spin period was equal to its orbiting period?
Yes, Tim S: Nice try with the strawman.
I will take that response to a direct question, that is completely on point and pertinent to the issue, to mean that the typical effects from a rotating planet are not present on the moon. I will not rule out the possibility that someone with more insight and knowledge will come up with a better answer. Does anyone have a good answer?
By the way, in the previous comment I misspelled orbit as obit.
I have another question. What about a pendulum clock? On earth (except maybe in the tropical zone) it makes one full revolution per day. What will it do on one of the poles of the moon? Is that the best place to put it?
I had the wrong name for a “pendulum clock”. It is a Foucault pendulum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
Its plane of motion will rotate in 27 days.
Earlier, the fanatical GHE cultist Tim Folkerts wrote –
“Flux LEAVING a surface (aka radiant exitance) can be used a ‘substitute’ for temperature (if you know emissivity). Radiant exitance cannot be added.
Flux ARRIVING a surface (aka irradiance) cannot be used a ‘substitute’ for temperature. Irradiance can be added.
So if one piece of ice emits emits 325 W/m^2 and second piece of ice emits 325 W/m^2, these two cannot be added to give 650 W/m^2,
But if 325 W/m^2 of irradiance arrives from the sun and another 325 W/m^2 of irradiance arrives from the sun, these two can be added to give 650 W/m^2 arriving at the surface. Add a couple more and these 325 W/m^2 fluxes could boil water.”
Tim states that irradiance arriving at a surface cannot be used as a substitute for temperature – and he is correct. Irradiance arriving at a surface is quite meaningless, which is why it is beloved by “climate scientists”.
Tim then goes on to imply that irradiance arriving at a surface can be used as a substitute for temperature! Well, no Tim, no it can’t. You are confused. Unless you concentrate the sunlight, you cannot even boil water with it. I invite you to try, and hope you will not mind too much if I snigger at your attempts to weasel out of your silly statement.
You are probably overlooking the fact that the Sun’s surface is some 5800 K, and by concentrating the Sun’s rays, you can achieve a temperature approaching 5800 K. Even in polar regions! Maybe that’s what you really meant?
Talking about W/m2 is quite irrelevant, unless the temperature of the emitter is known. As you correctly point out, even knowing the temperature of the emitter (say the Sun), measuring the amount of radiation from the Sun falling on an object tells you nothing useful about its temperature. Anybody who claims they can tell you what the temperature of the Earth “should be” with some cunning equation involving the Sun is either a fool or a fraud.
Terrestrial temperatures due to the Sun vary between about 90 C and -90 C. Both extremes can be attained using water – frozen, in the Antarctic, nearly boiling in a “solar pond”.
No GHE. Adding fluxes is as pointless as adding temperatures. Fanatical GHE cultists are simply ignorant and in denial of reality. Or complete frauds.
“Irradiance arriving at a surface is quite meaningless”
Irradiance arriving at a surface is the brightness of the light hitting a surface. If that is meaningless to you, then you understand nothing of flux.
“Unless you concentrate the sunlight, you cannot even boil water with it. “
Which is exactly what I was describing. Adding several beams of sunlight onto one area *IS* concentrating it.
“Tim then goes on to imply that irradiance arriving at a surface can be used as a substitute for temperature!”
No. irradiance it one piece of the energy balance. One piece in predicting the temperature of an object. But it is still the emitted flux (radiant exitance) that is a ‘substitute for temperature. You really don’t seem to understand any of this!
For example, if a blackbody surface is receiving 315 W/m^2 of flux, and there are no other sources of heat, then at steady-state, the surface would also be emitting 315 W/m^2. This EMITTED flux tells us the temperature.
Wrong again, Folkerts.
You’re confusing concentrating sunlight (like with a magnifying glass) with adding fluxes. If you were able to concentrate all the sunlight you would be able to heat something to Sun’s emitting temperature, ~5800K. Adding all of the flux from 10,000 ice cubes still only gets you 315 W/m²
You don’t understand any of this.
Concentrating sunlight IS adding fluxes!
A 1 cm square at earth’s surface receives about 1000 W/m^2 *0.0001m^2 = 0.1 W of sunlight on a sunny day.
With a mirror or a magnifying glass, sunlight that would not have hit that square is redirected and ADDED to original sunlight. For example, a single flat mirror could increase the flux to 2000 W/m^2, or 0.2 W total. Add more mirrors and you add more flux.
The rest of what you say is correct … and is exactly what I have always said. The EMITTED flux from the sun is about 64,000,000 W/m^2. The ARRIVING flux is about 1370 W/m^2 due to distance and geometry (and about 1000 W/m^2 at the surface due to the atmosphere). These ARRIVING fluxes can be added up to (but no more than) the original 64,000,000 W/m^2, which is your 5800 K.
Just like the EMITTED flux from the an ice cube is about 315 W/m^2. The ARRIVING flux is less due to distance . These ARRIVING fluxes can be added up to (but no more than) the original 315 W/m^2, which is 273 K. This could be done with mirrors, or by including multiple ice cubes.
The fascinating thing is that you explain perfectly that solar fluxes can be added, with limitations, but then say ice fluxes obey completely different rules.
Wrong again, Folkerts.
Nice ramble, though.
You’re confusing concentrating sunlight (like with a magnifying glass) with adding fluxes. If you were able to concentrate all the sunlight you would be able to heat something to Suns emitting temperature, ~5800K. Adding all of the flux from 10,000 ice cubes still only gets you 315 W/m².
You don’t understand any of this. This involves entropy — far over your head.
If you were able to concentrate all the {sunlight, icelight} you would be able to heat something to {Sun’s, ice’s} emitting temperature, {~5800K, ~273K}. Adding all of the flux from 10,000 {suns, ice cubes} still only gets you no further than {64,000,000 W/m^2, 315 W/m}.
It’s the same physics.
Fluxes add, but only within constraints determined by geometry. Once {sunlight, icelight} is coming from all directions, you can’t add any more. You can’t concentrate it any further.
Tim,
You wrote –
“The fascinating thing is that you explain perfectly that solar fluxes can be added, with limitations, but then say ice fluxes obey completely different rules.”
No, light of all wavelengths obeys the laws of physics.
It doesnt matter how much you concentrate light, you cannot use it to heat an object to a higher temperature than that of the light emitter. For example, concentrating sunlight (which is not “adding fluxes” – that’s your imagination at work), can be used to melt steel, boil water, etc., but cannot reach a higher temperature than the Sun – say 5800 K.
Concentrating the light (infrared) from ice cannot make anything hotter than the ice – not even if you concentrate the energy from ice to 10,000,000 W/m2! Go on, tell me you cannot concentrate infrared! Of course you can – lenses, mirrors – that sort of thing.
You might be one of those fanatical GHE cultists or “climate scientists” who believes you can add the energy from ice to that from sunlight! Or add the energy radiated from the atmosphere (some dimwits call it “back radiation”) to a hotter object, and claim the temperature of the object will rise!
No Tim, at night the temperature falls – no sunlight, Im afraid. Adding “flux” from ice won’t help. During the day, the unconcentrated rays of the Sun doesn’t even provide enough energy to boil water! Adding “flux” from ice won’t help there, either.
Maybe you could try claiming that CO2 concentrates sunlight?
Go away and learn to accept reality.
Folkerts gets trapped in his own nonsense, so has to argue with himself.
That’s why this is so much fun.
If Clint still insists EM fluxes from more than one source don’t ADD, I wonder how he can explain that during the eclipse, as more and more of the sun got covered by the Moon, the temperature noticeably dropped?
Then when the sun got uncovered, we got more solar flux, and the T warmed back up.
How does he account for this?
Swenson,
The sun is a singular source of energy. How can its irradiance be added together?
Walter,
Obviously it can’t. Except by fanatical GHE cultists, and “climate scientists” who believe you can meaningfully add temperatures! They are even silly enough to believe that irradiance measured in Watts per square meter is a measure of total energy!
It’s a rate of energy transmission – nothing more, nothing less, and often misleading.
A glacier emitting 250 W/m2 from 10 square km of surface is emitting, let me see, 1000 x 1000 x 10 x 250 Watts – continuously. 2.5 x 10^9 Watts! That’s an awful lot of Watts – if you focussed all that energy into 1 m2, that would be 2,500,000,000 W/m2!
Not enough to warm a teaspoon of water, unfortunately.
No GHE. Neither the fanatical GHE cultists, nor the “climate scientists” can even describe this mythical phenomenon!
A bit sad, really.
Lost my place…re Mercury’s orbital precession…
“From what I can see at the link, this is not an application of Einstein per se, but that of one of his groupies, Schwarzchild, who was more of an ijit than a scientist.
The analysis involves convoluted math with nary a shred of physical descrip.tion, so we are at the mercy of bean counters who cannot explain the physics. I found the spacetime math particularly humourous, gobbedly gook of the highest order.
If these people cannot explain the Mercury issue in words, using forces and masses, they simply don’t understand it. Appears to me they have worked toward a known solution, amending there formulae to suit.
For the classical solution, the author offers ….
ds^2 – dr^2 + r^2.d(omega)^2
This is a so-called ‘metric; that is supposedly designed to “…show that an orbit matching Mercurys specifications can be expected to shift by approximately 43 arcseconds per century…”
A metric is a standard of measurement but how can the relationship stated be a metric of anything if the values are not explained? They are supposed to represent polar coordinates and d(omega) supposedly represents angular acceleration, even though the dt has been omitted.
Come on, get serious. The author is presenting an ambiguous beginning to his paper then delves immediately into Lagrangians before establishing the problem and his approach. His entire proof is based on ambiguous equations.
When you begin messing with transformations and substitutions like a Lagrangian, you open the door to serious error. To be clear, the Lagrangian uses the sum of kinetic and potential energies rather than vectors and unless a person understands the actual physical issues involved, he/she could be lead off on a mathematical goose chase.
It would appear, in essence, that the debate between Einstein relativity and Newtonian relativity comes down the means of calculation that no one can visualize. The proof is hidden in complex math and we are left to take the word of the mathematicians.
Gordon,
It’s ok to mistake polar coordinates for spherical coordinates.
I have done it myself.
Just because you don’t understand the math, does not mean it is wrong, or anyone is hiding anything.
“Its ok to mistake polar coordinates for spherical coordinates.”
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
rlh…”We all know that Covid and HIV dont exist but kill people anyway. /sarc”
***
Good one, Richard. The scientist credited with discovering HIV, the late Luc Montagnier, went on to claim that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system, and that AIDS is caused by oxidative stress related to lifestyle. Peter Dueseberg claimed before Montagnier that HIV is a harmless ‘passenger’ virus and that AIDS is caused by drug and sex abuse.
Stefan Lanka, who discovered the first virus in the ocean, claimed there is no scientific proof that HIV or covid exist. Even Montagnier admitted he never saw HIV on an electron microscope but inferred it based on retrovirus theory. Covid has never been seen on an EM, it is also inferred based on retrovirus theory.
I don’t know if either virus exists, I am simply stating what experts in the field think about it. If hey do exist, they have been seriously over-hyped as to the danger they present, which is essentially minimal to a healthy person with a good immune system.
So now we have that HIV does not exist and therefore does not kill people.
“Covid has never been seen on an EM”
Wrong.
“I don’t know if either virus exists, I am simply stating what experts in the field think about it.”
They are not experts.
wee willy goes to his favourite authority figure to get a distorted comment on Krishnamurti.
All he had to do was go to this site and read for himself.
https://www.jkrishnamurti.org/
Comment from the first page…
“The core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the
statement he made in 1929 when he said, ‘Truth is a pathless land’. Man cannot come to it through any organisation, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.’
Does the following sound like philosophy?
“https://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-core-teachings
re truth…
“Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.
Man has built in himself images as a fence of securityreligious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates mans thinking, his relationships, and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all humanity. So he is not an individual”.
In the fine print below the last statement…
“Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not choice. It is mans pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity.
Thought is time. Thought is born of experience and knowledge, which are inseparable from time and the past. Time is the psychological enemy of man. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. Thought is ever limited and so we live in constant conflict and struggle. There is no psychological evolution. When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts, he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep, radical mutation in the mind.
Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence”.
> Total negation is the essence of the positive.
Absolutely not!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts,
“For example, if a blackbody surface is receiving 315 W/m^2 of flux, and there are no other sources of heat, then at steady-state, the surface would also be emitting 315 W/m^2. This EMITTED flux tells us the temperature.”
–
As far as the S-B emission law states, a blackbody surface doesn’t get warmed by the EM energy irradiance.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“a blackbody surface doesnt get warmed by the EM energy irradiance.”
You seem to be saying that sunlight doesn’t warm the ground. That heat lamps can’t warm objects.
Tim,
No, he said what he said.
Your silly comment “You seem to be saying that sunlight doesnt warm the ground. That heat lamps cant warm objects.” is just you trying to erect a strawman so you can demolish it with a knockout blow!
You seem to believe that you can calculate the temperature of an object receiving 630 W/m2 of sunlight! That’s completely ridiculous!
The province of fanatical GHE cultists, and “climate scientists”.
Go away and learn some physics.
“Go away and learn some physics.”
Why do ignorant people here keep telling a PhD physicist to ‘go away and learn some physics’, when quite obviously he has spent years learning quite a lot of physics.
Do they say to their plumber ‘go away and learn some plumbing’?
to their electrician ‘go away and learn about electricity’?
to their mechanic ‘go away and learn about engines’?
They must get regularly punched in the face. That probably explains their erratic behavior.
Tim,
“You seem to be saying that sunlight doesnt warm the ground. That heat lamps cant warm objects.”
–
No, I am not saying that.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“a blackbody surface doesnt get warmed by the EM energy irradiance.”
Sunlight is ‘EM energy irradiance’.
A patch of ground painted black is (very nearly) a ‘blackbody surface’.
The patch of ground gets warmed by the sunlight, in direct contradiction to this sentence.
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
“a blackbody surface doesnt get warmed by the EM energy irradiance.
Sunlight is EM energy irradiance.
A patch of ground painted black is (very nearly) a blackbody surface.
The patch of ground gets warmed by the sunlight, in direct contradiction to this sentence.”
–
–
“black body
[black body]
noun
a hypothetical perfect absorber and radiator of energy, with no reflecting power.”
–
–
“A black body in thermal equilibrium (that is, at a constant temperature) emits electromagnetic black-body radiation. The radiation is emitted according to Planck’s law, meaning that it has a spectrum that is determined by the temperature alone (see figure at right), not by the body’s shape or composition.
An ideal black body in thermal equilibrium has two main properties:[2]
It is an ideal emitter: at every frequency, it emits as much or more thermal radiative energy as any other body at the same temperature.
It is a diffuse emitter: measured per unit area perpendicular to the direction, the energy is radiated isotropically, independent of direction.
Real materials emit energy at a fractioncalled the emissivityof black-body energy levels. By definition, a black body in thermal equilibrium has an emissivity ε = 1. A source with a lower emissivity, independent of frequency, is often referred to as a gray body.”
–
–
Blackbody is not warmed by EM energy. Blackbody is a hypothetical surface at some temperature. It doesn’t consists from any kind of matter, so there is nothing to be warmed by EM energy.
EM energy interacts with matter. There is nothimg to interact with EM energy on the hypothetical blackbody surface.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“It [a blackbody] doesnt consists from any kind of matter…”
But you had just quoted a source saying “A black body in thermal equilibrium (that is, at a constant temperature) …”
If it has temperature, it is a physical object made up of matter. You are contradicting yourself!
Tim,
You wrote –
“If it has temperature, it is a physical object made up of matter. You are contradicting yourself!”
Don’t be stupid, trying to play silly semantic games.
Are you now saying that a theoretical black body (a perfect emitter), does not theoretically emit energy with wavelengths proportional to temperature?
Here’s just one internet definition of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law –
“Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the amount of radiation emitted by a black body per unit area is directly proportional to the fourth power of the temperature.”
We can play silly word games all day long, but a “black body” emitter is a theoretical entity. It may have an absolute temperature, or it may not. It has no size, and no mass.
Go away and learn some physics.
[CHRISTOS] a blackbody surface doesnt get warmed by the EM energy irradiance.
[MIKE FLYNN] Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the amount of radiation emitted by a black body per unit area is directly proportional to the fourth power of the temperature.
Swenson,
“We can play silly word games all day long, but a black body emitter is a theoretical entity. It may have an absolute temperature, or it may not. It has no size, and no mass.”
Now who is a bumbling bobby?
Try the general form of the law, which includes the emissivity.
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote –
“Try the general form of the law, which includes the emissivity.”
No, bumbling bobby, you are trying to troll again. You can’t specify this “general form of the law”, can you? The general law is that fanatical GHE cultists and “climate scientists” are never definite about anything, just making up stuff about non-existent “general [unspecified] laws”, to disguise the fact that they have no clue!
It is obvious to any onlookers that you have not contradicted a single statement I made – you don’t accept reality.
You asked “Now who is a bumbling bobby?”. The same one, bumbling bobby. Go on, tell me the temperature of a blackbody which absorbs all the energy from a supernova. How do you know?
You are just bumping your gums as usual.
Willard, you donkey, you don’t seem to realise that there are theoretical bodies of different sorts. You are confused about blackbody absorption –
“A blackbody allows all incident radiation to pass into it (no reflected energy) and internally absorbs all the incident radiation (no energy transmitted through the body). This is true for radiation of all wavelengths and for all angles of incidence. Hence the blackbody is a perfect absorber for all incident radiation.” – Wikipedia.
and blackbody emission in thermal equilibrium –
“It is an ideal emitter: at every frequency, it emits as much or more thermal radiative energy as any other body at the same temperature.” – Wikipedia.
One problem with combining both into one “body” is that you would have great difficulty perceiving it. If a body absorbed all incident radiation, then emitted all of it without alteration, what then? You obviously don’t understand what you are talking about, so you try to play silly semantic games.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, you sock puppet.
A patch of ground painted black is very nearly a blackbody surface.
The patch of ground gets warmed by the sunlight.
This is confirmed by what you said.
This contradicts what Christos said.
What are you braying about?
Willard, you donkey, you dont seem to realise that there are theoretical bodies of different sorts. You are confused about blackbody absorption
“A blackbody allows all incident radiation to pass into it (no reflected energy) and internally absorbs all the incident radiation (no energy transmitted through the body). This is true for radiation of all wavelengths and for all angles of incidence. Hence the blackbody is a perfect absorber for all incident radiation.” Wikipedia.
and blackbody emission in thermal equilibrium
“It is an ideal emitter: at every frequency, it emits as much or more thermal radiative energy as any other body at the same temperature.” Wikipedia.
One problem with combining both into one “body” is that you would have great difficulty perceiving it. If a body absorbed all incident radiation, then emitted all of it without alteration, what then? You obviously dont understand what you are talking about, so you try to play silly semantic games.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, you sock puppet.
You don’t seem to realize that your copypastas are silly.
What are you braying about?
Willard, you donkey, you dont seem to realise that there are theoretical bodies of different sorts. You are confused about blackbody absorption
“A blackbody allows all incident radiation to pass into it (no reflected energy) and internally absorbs all the incident radiation (no energy transmitted through the body). This is true for radiation of all wavelengths and for all angles of incidence. Hence the blackbody is a perfect absorber for all incident radiation.” Wikipedia.
and blackbody emission in thermal equilibrium
“It is an ideal emitter: at every frequency, it emits as much or more thermal radiative energy as any other body at the same temperature.” Wikipedia.
One problem with combining both into one body is that you would have great difficulty perceiving it. If a body absorbed all incident radiation, then emitted all of it without alteration, what then? You obviously dont understand what you are talking about, so you try to play silly semantic games.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, you sock puppet.
“Mike Flynn, you sock puppet.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
“Go on, tell me the temperature of a blackbody which absorbs all the energy from a supernova. How do you know?”
I don’t, because that is an impossible scenario.
Bumble on away.
Bumbling bobby, you claim a blackbody cannot absorb all energy that impinges upon it.
Here’s a definition from Wikipedia –
“A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.”
All incident electromagnetic radiation.
You might not like it, but there it is. No restriction on size. Or shape. Or thickness. Can it totally surround a radiation source? The definition doesn’t rule it out, does it?
Off you go, bumbling bobby, tell everyone what physical properties a theoretical black body possesses. What are the limits on the energy it can totally absorb? What happens to the energy?
It’s imaginary – it doesn’t actually exist. Nor does an infinite plane, or the square root of minus one! How about zero? Or a negative number?
You can’t even describe the GHE – some authority you are!
Swenson,
So you are envisioning a blackbody totally surrounded by a supernova.
Built to withstand the supernova explosion?
Pass me the bong birch.
“So you are envisioning a blackbody totally surrounded by a supernova.”
If you say so, bumbling bobby, if you say so. Are you quite mad?
You have a richly bizarre imagination. Maybe you quote me exactly, and comment accordingly. Otherwise, others might form the opinion that you are just another bumbling fanatical GHE cultist – who can’t even describe the GHE!
You could always try and learn some physics – if you could pull yourself out of your fantasy world long enough to accept reality. I consider this state extremely unlikely, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Here –
“You might not like it, but there it is. No restriction on size. Or shape. Or thickness. Can it totally surround a radiation source? The definition doesnt rule it out, does it?”
Cheers.
Brilliant Swenson,
You caught my error, of course I meant a blackbody totally surrounding the supernova. My mistake.
Still there is some information left out of your question.
The total energy of the supernova, the distance to the blackbody, and the thickness of the blackbody.
And since I didn’t answer your other question, as I thought it was obvious, someone trained in thermodynamics would recognize what I was referring to.
But since you are a dummy, here it is.
M = e sigma T^4
Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson, you are denying these fundamental facts:
1/ Vectors are defined not only by their magnitude but also by their direction.
2/ Two vectors are considered equal if and only if they have the same magnitude and direction.
3/ Two vectors with equal magnitude but different directions are distinct vectors.
4/ Because velocity is a vector, any change in magnitude or direction is an acceleration.
5/ A body in circular motion is being accelerated in proportion to, and in the direction of the net external force acting on it.
6/ In the example where you “ describe a simple illustration,” the two velocity vectors have the same magnitude but different direction, hence an acceleration.
This is related to why, you want to launch from the equator.
“Gordon Robertson, you are denying these fundamental facts:”
Do you really think he needs you to tell him what he has written?
Arkady please stop trolling.
1/I am denying nothing re vectors. I understand clearly that a vector has magnitude (a scalar quantity) and direction. If you look closely at a vector quantity it is normally specified as a unit vector, indicting an axial direction, and a scalar that multiplies the unit vector to get the full vector.
If I specify such a vector along the x-axis, pointing in the positive direction, with tail at 0,0, I base the direction on a unit vector, i, of length 1. If I want to extend it to x = 5, I extend the arrow to x = 5 and indicated that by writing 5 above the vector. The 5 could mean m/s, m/s^2, or whatever unit I need it to be.
If I now rotate that vector so it is pointing up the y-axis, it is the same vector but pointing in a different direction. If it represented a velocity of 5 m/s along the x-axis it is now a vector of 5 m/s along the y-axis, base on the unit vector, j. No change in velocity. So, a velocity vector of 5 m/s starting on a circle at 5,0 and moving around a circle, changes direction through 360 degrees but it is still representing a velocity of 5 m/s.
2/ Agreed, two vectors are equal but what does that mean? You need to look past vector theory to the reality represented by the vectors. Remember, vector are only tools to help us visualize. If I have a vector representing a 1 kg mass and another representing a 100 kg mass, they can have the same direction and same magnitude but the realities are hardly the same. The vectors won’t tell you anything about the reality unless it is specified.
3/you are so enmeshed in vector theory that you are missing the reality. What does ‘distinct vector’ mean?
4/Disagree. The change in magnitude is what defines any change re a change in velocity. A vector rotating around a circle could have a constant magnitude of 5 m/s yet the direction changes through 360 degrees. The velocity has not changed and acceleration = 0.
The x and y component are changing but not the resultant.
Look at it this way, You are driving a car around a circular track and you keep the speedometer at 5 mph, is the car’s velocity changing? A vector tracking the car’s COG would change direction through 360 degrees but the magnitude would remain constant at 5 mph.
5/If a force is acting steadily on a mass rotating in a circle, it does not mean the mass is accelerating. The force from a motor driving a car’s wheels, can be just enough to overcome resistance and maintain a constant velocity.
You have to be careful with f = ma because it is not written in stone. It is true in general but there are obvious exceptions.
6/I don’t get your reasoning. Why should two vectors with equal magnitude and opposite directions have an acceleration?
Again, you need to move away from kinematics and look at the forces involved, or even what the vectors represent.
Suppose I have two teams involved in a tug of war. Both are pulling with equal magnitude in opposite directions. the result is a static equilibrium, not acceleration. Only when one team exerts a force that exceeds the other is there an acceleration.
wee willy…”Are you [RLH] saying that if you change Newtons theory so that it cohere with general relativity it shows that there never was any problem with Newtons theory in the first place?”
***
That’s not how I interpreted Richard’s statement. He appeared to me to be saying there is not much difference between the two calculations.
I think there is a good reason for that. Einstein, via Lorentz, redefined time based on the speed of light. The pertinent relationship is (1 – v^2/c^2) and it becomes apparent that this multiplier is insignificant when v << c.
I have no idea why anyone would want to apply Einsteinian relativity to such a problem in the first place and why it should produce results that Newtonian relativity cannot do. In fact, the only problem with Newtonian physics in this respect is the lack of instrumentation to measure at the atomic level. No one has ever proved it does not apply at the atomic level, in fact, it was used by Shrodinger as the basis of his wave equation that has become the basis of quantum theory.
> I have no idea why anyone would want to apply Einsteinian relativity to such a problem in the first place
The joy of incredulity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
“The joy of incredulity:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
from your article…”The precession of Mercury was already known”.
Again…why was Einstein’s relativity even required? Mercury’s orbital precession has nothing to do with the speed of light and the rate at which it happens is so slow compared to the speed of light as to make Einstein’s equations moot.
> why was Einsteins relativity even required?
The joy of playing dumb:
Op. Cit.
“The joy of playing dumb:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
In 1859 the speed of gravity was considered infinite.
Relevance?
“Relevance?”
Nate, please stop trolling.
Swenson: your relevance?
From a US university course –
“The answer obtained in this and the next subsection will be most curious: no, the Schrdinger equation flatly contradicts that the wave function collapses, but yes, it requires that measurement leads to the experimentally observed collapse. The analysis will take us to a mind-boggling but really unavoidable conclusion about the very nature of our universe.”
The conclusion might be that nobody understands quantum physics.
tim f…”The patch of ground gets warmed by the sunlight, in direct contradiction to this sentence”.
***
I think what Christos is trying to say is this. EM does not heat the surface, the heating is due to solar EM exciting electron in atoms of the surface. It is the electrons that produce the heat.
Conversely, EM by itself in space heats nothing if there is no mass absorbing it.
rlh…”[GR]Covid has never been seen on an EM
[RLH]Wrong.
***
Proof!!! And, please, none of those faked images that proliferate on Google. Proof requires a black and white image with a size marker.
The original Wuhan scientists admitted they had not isolated a virus and Drosten, who produced the test, admitted the same.
> Proof!!!
Step 2 – Sammich Request
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Your quest, my response.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73162-5
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73162-5/figures/1
“The idea of a black body originally was introduced by Gustav Kirchhoff in 1860 as follows:
…the supposition that bodies can be imagined which, for infinitely small thicknesses, completely absorb all incident rays, and neither reflect nor transmit any. I shall call such bodies perfectly black, or, more briefly, black bodies.[6]”
–
–
“In astronomy, the radiation from stars and planets is sometimes characterized in terms of an effective temperature, the temperature of a black body that would emit the same total flux of electromagnetic energy.”
–
–
“effective temperature, the temperature of a black body that would emit the same total flux of electromagnetic energy.”
–
–
Earth’s Te =255K is the temperature of a black body that would emit the same total flux of electromagnetic energy.
–
–
Te =255K is purely theoretical, because it is not the temperature of Earth, but the temperature of something, that would emit the same total flux of electromagnetic energy.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…Kircheoff knew nothing about EM, he was only guessing based on the EM Faraday had emitted from conductors. It was not till 1914 that Bohr discovered the relationship between EM and electrons in atoms.
EM can be emitted by an electric current running through a conductor but the type emitted by the Sun is different. It comes from electron transitions in atoms in the Sun. There is no way that Kircheoff, Stefan, or Boltzmann knew about that kind of EM. Ergo, blackbody theory is based on science fiction.
The EM emitted by current in a conductor is static for a direct current and if it is produced by an AC current it takes on the frequency of the current. The AC emitted by electron transitions is also dependent on the angular frequency of electrons and that frequency can be in a range from radio frequencies to x-rays. When S and B created their T^4 relationship they knew nothing about electrons or how they produce EM and that is apparent since no frequency component is built into their equations.
Ironically, Planck did build a frequency component into his equation but he guessed that individual light frequencies could be modeled by single-frequency oscillators. He had know idea that those little oscillators were a fact and that they were represented by electrons in atoms.
Thank you, Gordon,
“Ironically, Planck did build a frequency component into his equation but he guessed that individual light frequencies could be modeled by single-frequency oscillators. He had know idea that those little oscillators were a fact and that they were represented by electrons in atoms.”
–
Is there the highest frequency possible in the EM energy, or is there the shortest EM wave possible?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Te =255K is purely theoretical, because it is not the temperature of Earth, but the allegedtemperature of something, that would emit the same total flux of electromagnetic energy as Earth.
That Te =255K the allegedtemperature of something, is calculated by reversing the S-B emission law formula, by assuming the not reflected part of the incident solar energy is entirely absorbed and evenly distributed on the planet surface, and then it is isotropically IR emitted.
–
Also, we have already demonstrated, the S-B emission law doesn’t apply on the surface’s lower temperatures, the Law doesn’t apply at the terrestrial temperatures.
Quote:
If there is something very slightly wrong in our definition of the theories, then the full mathematical rigor may convert these errors into ridiculous conclusions.
Richard Feynman
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Te =255K is NOT purely theoretical Christos, Earth system brightness temperature of ~255K has been measured by satellite radiometers (that don’t wear polarized sunglasses) over the course of many annual periods and continues today just like an IR thermometer measures ice water at 32F.
Ball4,
Surface temperatures on Earth vary between about -90 C, and magma at about 1500 C.
You really have no clue, do you? You just deny reality, and make up bizarre nonsense as you go along.
No GHE. The Earth’s surface has cooled to its present temperature over the past four and a half billion years. You can’t even describe the mythical GHE, can you? That’s because it doesnt exist, you dummy!
Back to your fantasy.
Swenson 4:00am confuses measured surface temperatures, Ts, with Earth system measured Te: typical incompetence & very amusing.
“Swenson 4:00am confuses measured surface temperatures, Ts, with Earth system measured Te: typical incompetence & very amusing.”
Ball4,
“earth system measured . . . “? Where did you buy your imaginary “earth system”? What did it “measure”? Thermometers measure temperature, not “earth systems”. Or are you simply confused, and really meant to say something else?
You are surely are an idiot, who believes an object can have two “degrees of hotness” (temperature), at the same time!
Only misguided Swenson writes an object can have two “degrees of hotness” (temperature), at the same time!
IR thermometers measure brightness temperature of ice water at 32F which is measured the same as the kinetic temperature at 32F, no humorous Swenson invention of “two degrees of hotness” exists except in Swenson’s imagination. Pity.
Ball4,
Surface temperatures on Earth vary between about -90 C, and magma at about 1500 C.
You really have no clue, do you? You just deny reality, and make up bizarre nonsense as you go along.
No GHE. The Earths surface has cooled to its present temperature over the past four and a half billion years. You cant even describe the mythical GHE, can you? Thats because it doesnt exist, you dummy!
Back to your fantasy.
Even NASA claims the average surface temperature is about 288 K! You know better, don’t you – 255 K, and you say that NASA is using the wrong sort of thermometer. Oh well, if you say the Earth is about -15 C, it must be.
Ball4 believes satellites measure 255K, but he can’t provide any meaningful source.
He just believes….
The recent data supporting the 255K is all collected at this link & continues, however Clint R cannot deal with reality so completely avoids research papers using this data.
Previously, other satellite data was successfully used to verify the ~255K annual brightness temperature of Earth system which uninformed Clint also humorously avoids.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
Thank you, Ball4, for your response.
“Te =255K is NOT purely theoretical Christos, Earth system brightness temperature of ~255K has been measured by satellite radiometers (that dont wear polarized sunglasses) over the course of many annual periods and continues today just like an IR thermometer measures ice water at 32F.”
–
Earth’s Effective Temperature Te = 255K is a theoretically calculated uniform surface temperature of the planet Earth without-atmosphere.
Ball4, “Earth system brightness temperature of ~255K has been measured by satellite radiometers ”
Does that mean Earth’s atmosphere actually is very thin, and, consequently, does it mean Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t whatsoever play any measurable role?
Ball4, maybe you can explain, whether “Earth system brightness temperature of ~255K has been measured by satellite radiometers” whether it is a global uniform temperature, or is it an average global temperature?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
wee willy…”Mercury deviates from the precession predicted from these Newtonian effects”.
***
How many Newtonian physicists worked on this problem? Are you claiming none of them could have come up with the answer?
Again, what is so special about Einstein’s theory that suits it better to predicting the precession of Mercury? And how do we prove Einstein’s relativity works in that regard?
Einstein –
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”
The general theory of relativity is still a theory. In other words, no experiment has proven the theory wrong – so far. Observations support the theory – so far.
> How many
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Not even a coherent one, this time.
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
By the beginning of the 20th century astronmers had measured with amazing precision, the precession rate of Mercury’s orbit of 5600 seconds of arc per century.
https://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/gr/PrecessionperihelionMercury.htm
By that time physicists had amazingly worked out, with high precision the effect of Newton’s law of gravity, of all the other planets, on Mercury’s orbital precession rate.
They found it to be 5557 seconds of arc per century. There is a discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century between this Newtonian prediction and the observed precession rate.
Originally it was proposed that there must be a missing planet, but none was ever found.
Einstein, in 1913 had worked out his first attempt at General relativity, and tried it out on Mercury and its prediction was way off, 18 seconds of arc per century. Eventually this theory was abandoned.
In late 1915, after learning new math and working out his final General Relativity equation, he used it first to calculate its effect on the precession of Mercury.
He got precisely 43 seconds per century.
And he peed his pants. Just kidding, but he did have heart palpitations. This first confirmation of his theory was thrilling, according to his biographers (A. Pais, and Walter Isaacson).
For those who have been waiting for me to figure this out, the answer is that the moon does rotate with respect to space, but it does not spin about its axis as defined as a line through its center of gravity. The proof is not all the silly stuff you have folks have been arguing about. The proof is the Foucault pendulum. It should now be the most important mission of NASA to install one of these at one of the poles of the moon and prove the thought experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
Even that would not convince the non-spinners.
Especially Gordon Robertson who is convinced that every one of the hundreds of Foucault pendulums around the world is fraudulent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums
I assured him that I once built one in my school and it worked as expected, but he doesn’t believe me.
Tim S
” The proof is the Foucault pendulum. ”
Thank you for explaining this basic fact to us.
*
1. ” … the answer is that the moon does rotate with respect to space… ”
I suppose you mean ‘with respect to a fixed point in space’.
” … but it does not spin about its axis as defined as a line through its center of gravity. ”
Where exactly did you get that from? Thanks for posting some truly valuable source.
*
2. ” The proof is not all the silly stuff you have folks have been arguing about. ”
If you mean silly stuff like ‘ball on a string’, ‘MOTL vs. MOTR’ pictures and other ‘merry go round’ examples: agreed.
But do you really mean that ALL documents I collected about the lunar spin evaluations
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
contain silly stuff as well? Sure sure sure, Tim S?
*
It is particularly amazing to see people doubting what scientists preparing for lunar missions LUCKILY have avoided: the lunar exploration modules’ failure to rendezvous in the ascent phase with their orbiting carriers (after a dwell time of 21 hours and 30 minutes during Apollo 11 the ascent point shifted by around 360 km, which of course has nothing at all to do with Moon’s orbit trajectory).
Unfortunately, Tim, the Foucault pendulum cannot resolve the issue. The pendulum merely detects a change in orientation of the body wrt an inertial reference frame…but, both "Non-Spinners" and "Spinners" agree that the moon is changing in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame whilst it moves.
To put it more simply, the Foucault pendulum cannot distinguish between "orbiting" and "spinning", the two motions at the heart of the debate.
The Moon spins once on its axis per orbit as everybody (nearly) agrees.
Answer me this, where does the energy for the tides (earth and water) come from?
"The Moon spins once on its axis per orbit as everybody (nearly) agrees."
Well, not Tim S, the person I was responding to. He said:
"…it does not spin about its axis as defined as a line through its center of gravity".
He mentioned the Foucault pendulum as being a proof either way, so I was just letting him know that it wouldn’t resolve the issue. I won’t be staying here long, and, of course, will not be answering any "gotcha" questions. If you wish to make a point, you’ll have to clearly, concisely and directly do so, and others may respond to you if they wish.
“both “Non-Spinners” and “Spinners” agree that the moon is changing in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame whilst it moves.”
That is an important point. I’ll take it one step further. The moon is changing in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame AT A CONSTANT RATE. The angular speed is 360 degrees/27.32166 days= 1.138 degrees/day. This is what the Foucault Pendulum (or any other rotation meter) would detect.
However, the orbit proceeds at varying angular speeds due to the moon’s elliptical orbit. From about 1.0 to 1.2 degrees/day wrt an inertial frame.
The fact that these two motions proceed at differing rates should convince people that “orbit” and “rotation” are two separate motions.
* The moon ORBITS THE EARTH with varying angular speed.
* The moon ROTATES ON ITS AXIS with constant angular speed.
Where does the energy for the tides (earth and water) come from?
“The moon ORBITS THE EARTH with varying angular speed.
The moon ROTATES ON ITS AXIS with constant angular speed.”
QED,
Just a quick note that “Non-Spinners” agree “orbiting” and “spinning” are separate motions. The idea is that the moon is only “orbiting”, the Earth (for example) is both “orbiting” and “spinning”.
… the moon is only “orbiting”, the Earth (for example) is both “orbiting” and “spinning” & both object motions are as observed from Earth.
Rotating and sinning at different rates as observed above.
…spinning…
“The idea is that the moon is only “orbiting” … “
And yet you think it is “only orbiting” at two different rates simultaneously.
This comes back to the fact that none of the ‘non-spinners’ have yet been able to state what “only orbiting” would be for an elliptical orbit.
Sadly, that is "outside the scope" of the points 1) – 4), Tim.
Graham D. Warner ignores any incoherence in the Moon Dragon cranks’ position that would distract him from hiding under a bridge.
If you say so, Little Willy.
“Sadly, that is “outside the scope” of the points 1) 4), Tim.”
A theory of orbits that can’t handle ellipses is no theory at all. I can see why you want to skip all the tough questions — you have no answer. Actual orbits are ‘outside the scope’ of your theory!
If you say so, Tim.
“Graham D. Warner ignores any incoherence in the Moon Dragon cranks position that would distract him from hiding under a bridge.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good morning, Mike Flynn.
“Good morning, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Monkeying Graham D. Warner isn’t a good look.
“Mike Flynn,
Monkeying Graham D. Warner isnt a good look.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
” The pendulum merely detects a change in orientation of the body wrt an inertial reference framebut, both “Non-Spinners” and “Spinners” agree that the moon is changing in orientation wrt an inertial reference frame whilst it moves.”
Yep. It objectively detects ROTATION.
“To put it more simply, the Foucault pendulum cannot distinguish between “orbiting” and “spinning”, the two motions at the heart of the debate.”
In the animation of the MOTR, the orbiting body has NO rotation. And none would be detected on it by a Foucault pendulum.
Thus the Foucault pendulum could distinguish between a body orbiting with rotation and a body orbiting without rotation.
Nate had his chance for a discussion with me, but Ball4 blew it for him. Oh well. Back to ignoring him.
Oh well. Back to pretending that ‘ignoring’ me, matters.
Sure, DREMT just got tired of DREMT’s faulty comments on motion being regularly defeated by Nate & author Madhavi.
And Tim makes a key point:
“And yet you think it is ‘only orbiting’ at two different rates simultaneously.”
This comes back to the fact that none of the non-spinners have yet been able to state what ‘only orbiting’ would be for an elliptical orbit.”
And though this thread was a discussion of the Moon’s orbit, which is elliptical, the hilarious response is:
“that is “outside the scope” of the points 1) 4), Tim.”
Nate agreed with me and Madhavi on the point you raised at the end there, Ball4. You obviously did not pay attention to what Nate said when he returned, after you got the discussion closed.
Sure, sometimes DREMT agrees with Madhavi. If DREMT were 100% wrong, then just reversing DREMT’s comments would always agree with Madhavi. Just need to check with Madhavi et. al. informed authors in the field to determine when DREMT’s layman comments on motion are correct or not.
“You obviously did not pay attention to what Nate said when he returned, after you got the discussion closed.”
DREMT didnt ignore it as promised, after all!
Tee hee hee.
To summarize:
“As noted, the full description of a planets motion will be a translation plus rotation.”
Yes, Ball4 was wrong, whilst attempting to condescend. The usual. Meanwhile, Nate conceded that translation does necessarily involve the orientation of the object, thus "Spinners" cannot pretend that the definition of the word "orbit" supports their cause any more than it does the "Non-Spinners". Another little win for Team JITH at the end of a good discussion for us, overall. Shame Ball4 had to ruin it, really, but that’s what he does.
” Nate conceded that translation does necessarily involve the orientation of the object, thus “Spinners” cannot pretend that the definition of the word “orbit” supports their cause any more than it does the “Non-Spinners”.”
as usual, DREMT misrepresents me.
I noted that a complete description of a planetary motion is a translation plus a rotation.
How does that not support our cause, is unclear.
But what is an ORBIT?
Newton studied the problem of a spherical body, eg, a cannonball, moving at constant velocity with no rotation or none specified. If fired near a planet, then he found the body can go into ORBIT, ie follow an elliptical path through space around the planet.
He DID NOT find that going into orbit added any ROTATION to the body’s initial condition.
Thus going into orbit alters only a body’s TRANSLATIONAL motion.
This is what Newton’s laws of physics show.
Sorry, I forgot to leave a link to prove what I said was correct:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1662264
[DREMT] “Translation” does give information about orientation…since a translating body will remain fixed in its orientation wrt an inertial reference frame. That’s part of the way “translation” is defined.”
[NATE] Sure.
Already has been shown DREMT was NOT correct in last quote at that link by author Madhavi showing rotation about an internal axis is “said to be a translation” of the object when any straight line inside the body (such as the spin axis shown) keeps the same direction during the motion wrt an inertial frame.
Has DREMT anything new or just going over old incorrect DREMT comments?
Ball4 claims Nate is wrong. [Grabs popcorn].
“[NATE] Sure.
Full quote
“Sure. As noted, the full description of a planets motion will be a translation plus rotation.”
How this does not support the spinner narrative is beyond me.
Nate is correct as shown by rigid body kinematics author Madhavi since an object’s motion can be a translation plus rotation without information about the object’s orientation as Madhavi shows DREMT recently incorrectly claimed: “Translation does give information about orientation…”.
Oh, I see. Ball4 didn’t realise that I meant an object that was only translating, not one that was translating and rotating on its own internal axis at the same time. Nate obviously did get what I mean, through context, hence he said "sure".
So, it’s just Ball4 being silly, again.
"Orbit: the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft round a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution."
In case it wasn’t clear, to follow a curved path gives no indication as to the orientation of the body whilst doing so.
Whereas, for translation (without rotation about an internal axis), indication is given as to the orientation of the body.
So, the definition of "orbit" supports neither the "Spinners", nor the "Non-Spinners". The "Spinners" want "orbit" to mean a translation (without rotation about an internal axis), but that would involve the orientation of the body being indicated, which the definition of "orbit" does not do.
The "Non-Spinners" want "orbit" to mean a rotation about an external axis (without rotation about an internal axis), but that would involve the orientation of the body being indicated, which the definition of "orbit" does not do.
The "Non-Spinners" do, however, have the word "revolution" on their side…
Has DREMT anything new or just repeating past known incorrect (as shown by Madhavi) DREMT comments?
Madhavi shows that me and Nate were correct, Ball4, once the "without rotation about an internal axis" is understood.
We were right, you were wrong. Oh well.
Yet another incorrect repetition. Anything new DREMT?
We were right, you were wrong.
Graham D. Warner must have forgotten:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1661376
No, I remember that, Little Willy. I thoroughly recommend that the entire discussion is read through from beginning to end. Should shed a little light on things.
… by the reader realizing where DREMT is wrong about rigid body kinematics as shown by author Madhavi when DREMT incorrectly claims: “Translation does give information about orientation…”.
Translation (without rotation about an internal axis) does give information about orientation, as Madhavi and Nate agreed.
“”Orbit: the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft round a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution.”
In case it wasnt clear, to follow a curved path gives no indication as to the orientation of the body whilst doing so.”
Glad DREMT agrees that there is nothing in the definition or ORBIT to indicate that the default orientation, his so-called ‘base motion’ must keep orientation fixed to the orbited body, as in the MOTL.
“Whereas, for translation (without rotation about an internal axis), indication is given as to the orientation of the body.”
No. Whatever it is, it is fixed in the non-rotating frame of the stars.
“So, the definition of “orbit” supports neither the “Spinners”, nor the “Non-Spinners”. The “Spinners” want “orbit” to mean a translation (without rotation about an internal axis), but that would involve the orientation of the body being indicated, which the definition of “orbit” does not do.”
No, astronomy defines Orbit as only the translational motion of the body (position of its COM vs time) and parameterizes rotation separately. It is understood that a planet’s complete motion will be the sum of translation + rotation.
So there is no controversy at all here.
Kepler observed orbits to be elliptical, there were no observations of planet spin (except Earth and Moon). So his model for Orbit accounts for only the translational motion of planets.
And Newton’s solution of the 2-body gravity problem finds only the translational motion of the orbiting bodies.
“The “Non-Spinners” want “orbit” to mean a rotation about an external axis (without rotation about an internal axis), but that would involve the orientation of the body being indicated, which the definition of “orbit” does not do.”
Agreed. It would involve fixing the orientation of the body, not wrt to the universe, but wrt to a rotating reference frame. It would involve defining orbit as circular, when they are in general NOT CIRCULAR.
Hence no one in science or engineering thinks this makes any sense.
“The “Non-Spinners” do, however, have the word “revolution” on their side”
Which, as with many words, has many common usages as well as technical meanings. In astronomy, it means orbit, and it means going around a central body but not usually in a circular motion, hence not equivalent to a rotation.
“Rotation and Revolution
“Rotation” refers to an object’s spinning motion about its own axis. “Revolution” refers the object’s orbital motion around another object. For example, Earth rotates on its own axis, producing the 24-hour day. Earth revolves about the Sun, producing the 365-day year. A satellite revolves around a planet.”
https://science.nasa.gov/learn/basics-of-space-flight/chapter2-1/
In any case the word is hardly used anymore in astronomy or aerospace engineering.
No idea what Nate’s saying, but knowing him, he’s probably arguing with himself.
The odd pretense of ignorance returns.
Let me just add how ridiculous the non-spinner scenario gets.
They imagine that the planets need to have TWO different orbital motions, and TWO different rotational motions.
To satisfy their beliefs, they want default orbits to be rotations around an external axis. Which requires a default rotation rate and axis, and default circular orbital motion.
To correct for these default assumptions they need to
ADD another rotation around a different axis, and add a complex additional translational motion to go from circular to elliptical orbit.
Example, for the Earth they contemplate a slightly variable rotation of 1 rev/365 days around the orbital axis, and a second rotation at a constant 1 rev/24 h around an axis tilted around somewhere near 24 degrees.
Of course objectively, measurably, there is only one rotation, around one axis, the polar axis, tilted at 23.5 degrees and fixed to Polaris, with fixed rotation rate 1 rev/(23 h 56 min).
They envision that all the other planets have two axes of rotation. Of course observationally they only have one.
Why do they wish to inflict this unnecessary complexity onto astronomy?
No idea? Of course that’s the case since DREMT has nothing new.
Nate 5:48 am shows DREMT’s 12:53 am incorrectly states to what Nate agreed. Nate agrees with Madhavi whenever DREMT incorrectly claims: “Translation does give information about orientation…” since Madhavi shows that to be unphysical in the field of kinematics of rigid bodies.
"No idea? Of course that’s the case since DREMT has nothing new."
No, I meant I have no idea what Nate’s saying, as I’m back to not reading or responding to his comments.
"Nate 5:48 am shows DREMT’s 12:53 am incorrectly states to what Nate agreed. Nate agrees with Madhavi whenever DREMT incorrectly claims: “Translation does give information about orientation…” since Madhavi shows that to be unphysical in the field of kinematics of rigid bodies."
Oh, has he done a completely 180 on what he said before, then? No surprises there. Well, despite whatever it is that he’s saying now, he was right the first time. Translation (without rotation about an internal axis) does give an indication as to the orientation of the object, since an object that is translating in a circle (for example), with no rotation about an internal axis, would be moving as per the MOTR ("moon on the right", from the GIF I linked to further down-thread). It’s orientation remains such that one face of the body is always pointing towards some distant, fixed star whilst it moves.
That’s all you need to know, really, to get why the dictionary definition of "orbit" supports neither the "Spinners", nor the "Non-Spinners". The dictionary definition has "to orbit" as simply to follow a path through space, with no indication of the orientation of the object doing so. You’ll notice the definition mentions neither "translation" nor "CoM".
Of course, it wouldn’t mention "translation", because as I’ve already explained, an object translating in a circle (without rotating on its own internal axis) would be moving as per the MOTR, and that has a specific orientation throughout the motion.
Nate has not done a complete 180, DREMT was simply wrong initially & just didn’t include Nate’s complete context in DREMT’s clip. DREMT should have done so in addition to providing the link.
Nate’s 5:48 am comment agrees with Madhavi that translation (without rotation about an internal axis) doesn’t give an indication as to the orientation of the object as shown in Madhavi 2.0 1. “A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.”
Correctly according to Madhavi’s field of rigid body kinematics, since all motion is relative, an object translating in a circle on R (without rotating on its own internal axis r) would be seen moving as per the MOTR or the MOTL depending on observer location, and that object then could be seen as having a specific orientation throughout the motion.
Very amusing, Ball4. If Nate doesn’t publicly disagree with what you just said about translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis), then he’s an absolute disgrace.
We already know you are, Ball4.
DREMT, a layman in the field of rigid body kinematics, will not understand what Nate wrote first hand until DREMT reads Nate’s comments.
If Nate doesn’t respond to correct you, Ball4, he’s a disgrace. It’s over to him. His move. I’m not bothered, as I won’t be reading it, either way. It’s between you and him, now, to argue out your differences.
Funny, DREMT will not then know Nate agrees with Madhavi, an author in the field of rigid body kinematics, showing that translation (without rotation about an internal axis) doesn’t give an indication as to the orientation of the object.
Ball4, you said that translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) is either movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR, dependent on location of observation. That is false. It is movement like the MOTR.
If Nate doesn’t also correct you on that, he’s a disgrace.
This may be the root of all your confusion on this issue. Your confusion is considerable.
Nate says:
”In case it wasnt clear, to follow a curved path gives no indication as to the orientation of the body whilst doing so.”
wrong! for any given moon in the solar system a moon has a better than 50% chance of being tidal locked to the planet it rotates around.
That was Nate quoting me, Bill, to be fair. I’m saying that the dictionary definition of "orbit" does not support the "Spinners" or the "Non-Spinners", because "to follow a curved path" does not specify anything about the orientation of the body following the path.
Whereas "revolution", on the other hand, as we know, means "rotation about an external axis"…which of course does specify the orientation of the body following the path.
Debates about semantics are all kind of silly though, really. Ultimately, it all comes down to whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL, or the MOTR.
Bill, you are quoting DREMT. And saying he is wrong!
I’ll assume Nate has corrected Ball4, or is going to, shortly.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”That was Nate quoting me, Bill, to be fair. Im saying that the dictionary definition of “orbit” does not support the “Spinners” or the “Non-Spinners”, because “to follow a curved path” does not specify anything about the orientation of the body following the path.”
I agree it doesn’t specify the orientation. But thats much different than saying: ”gives no indication”
But Nate is also very wrong when he says:
”Glad DREMT agrees that there is nothing in the definition or ORBIT to indicate that the default orientation, his so-called base motion must keep orientation fixed to the orbited body, as in the MOTL.”
thats obviously not the case. The moon is tidal locked within its orbit by the gravity of earth. Presumably, the moon broke off from the earth at a time when the earth was spinning faster than it is now. thus the moon would have converted the earth’s angular momentum into angular momentum on the part of the earth piece that broke off (as seen in slo-mos of pieces of an LP blowing off when spun on a high speed motor where it continued to rotate at the same rate as the LP was rotating when it blew apart). But the earth’s gravity continued to recoup that angular momentum until no spin on the center of the earth piece that turned into the moon was left.
At any case I think you have to agree that statistical analysis can give indications of the motion of similar objects. Where Nate screws up is in believing its still rotating on its center. Thats only a situation that would only be realized in the case of outside perturbation that would cause the moon to depart from its current orbit.
DREMT, translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) is either movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR, dependent on location of observation as shown in Madhavi’s rigid body kinematics. DREMT is wrong to disagree with Madhavi whereas Nate & Bill 2:19 pm are correct to agree with Madhavi’s publication.
Bill is correct in that our moon is now tidally locked within its orbit by the gravity of earth as shown in Madhavi so Bill also agrees with Madhavi. DREMT just needs to become more informed on rigid body kinematics to be correct more often & fully agree with Madhavi.
“DREMT, translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) is either movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR, dependent on location of observation as shown in Madhavi’s rigid body kinematics. DREMT is wrong to disagree with Madhavi whereas Nate & Bill 2:19 pm are correct to agree with Madhavi’s publication.”
Erm…Madhavi shows that it is movement like the MOTR, Ball4. Fig. 2(a), remember? Bill most certainly did not agree with you, and I’m sure Nate will get around to correcting you himself.
“Bill is correct in that our moon is now tidally locked within its orbit by the gravity of earth as shown in Madhavi so Bill also agrees with Madhavi. DREMT just needs to become more informed on rigid body kinematics to be correct more often & fully agree with Madhavi.”
Yes, the moon is tidally locked, Ball4. Which has nothing to do with Madhavi.
> I agree it doesnt specify the orientation. But thats much different than saying: gives no indication
Most celestial objects that orbit are just tiny specks of light.
LMAO!
Ball4 says:
”DREMT, translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) is either movement like the MOTL”
I will repeat this one more time. But as an elementary school teacher told me one day a few years ago, if after repeating the instructions several times and the student doesn’t learn it it is because either they don’t want to learn or they can’t learn.
Madhavi says: ”A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion. It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the body move along parallel paths.”
thus the motion of the moon around the earth, which appears as the MOTL, is NOT a translation. If the moon appeared like the MOTR then and only then could the orbit be a translation. . . or alternatively it could be a rotation around the earth with a perfectly timed counter rotation on the moon’s COM.
The MOTL fails Madhavi’s test of being a translation. So you are just plain wrong.
Bill no longer sez I (err DREMT) is wrong. ”
But now I’m wrong somthing else that DREMT agrees with:
“But Nate is also very wrong when he says:
‘Glad DREMT agrees that there is nothing in the definition or ORBIT to indicate that the default orientation, his so-called base motion must keep orientation fixed to the orbited body, as in the MOTL.”
“thats obviously not the case. The moon is tidal locked within its orbit by the gravity of earth.”
The Moon is tidally locked, which makes it have 1-1 Spin-Orbit resonance, one TYPE of orbital motion.
But, no, that condition is not specified in the DEFINITION of ORBIT.
A reasonably long comment from Nate, so I’ll assume that was him correcting Ball4.
So Nate do you still believe that an orbiting body is translating?
DREMT Nate likes to argue like a soup sandwich constantly attempting to pinned down on anything by slopping all over the place.
So I am trying to see if he wants to tell Ball4 he is wrong about orbital motion, but I have little hope that Nate will honestly answer any questions.
Has he still not corrected Ball4, then Bill!? I mean…this is the problem with these people.
If you and I have a minor disagreement over the details, we mention it, and try to explain ourselves. Generally, that’s the case, with the "Non-Spinners". We don’t agree on everything, but where we disagree, we’re at least capable of mentioning it occasionally. With the "Spinners"…they have major disagreements over pretty much everything, amongst themselves, and never have the integrity to argue it out! Hence, the argument never progresses.
I would say that the dictionary definition of the word "orbit" gives no indication as to the orientation of the object, but that is equally unhelpful to "Spinner" and "Non-Spinner" arguments. They keep trying to make out like it somehow supports them! It does not. However, Ball4’s misunderstanding about "translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis)" has been unveiled as a result of this discussion, and it’s such a major misunderstanding that it’s going to hold him back from ever getting where we’re coming from. Nate could help, but he probably won’t.
Gill likes to deny, to ask for sammich, and to say stuff.
Were he not a crank, he’d be the perfect contrarian.
” Hence, the argument never progresses.”‘
OMG, can’t be anything to do with the fact that the non-spinner argument is bad and unconvincing, but they stick with it anyway!
Only a short one from Nate, so I’m guessing he still hasn’t corrected Ball4!
The non-spinner argument is bad because, as noted here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1662513
it’s ‘base motions’ do nothing to facilitate astronomy.
In fact they do the opposite, by inflicting unnecessary complexity into describing planetary motions, onto astronomy.
Why?
Naturally, astronomy has filed this idea where it belongs, in the round file.
A bit longer. Guess he could have corrected Ball4, there.
DREMT, No Nate completely dodged the question and ignored it because he was in error there at one time and now he doesn’t want to inform Ball4 because he is happy that Ball4 is misinformed.
I am not a member of Fight Club, and have no interest in participating in your obvious attempts to distract from your total failure to make your case.
Since DREMT has argued that we need to know something about the mechanism to decide what the the motion objectively is, then he must have in mind a mechanism that persuades him that the MOTL is the correct ‘base motion’ for planetary orbits.
So I asked him several times what is that mechanism for gravity acting on bodies in space, that persuades him?
And he had no answer. All he does is talk about the mechanisms other devices.
No surprises there then, Bill. I guess Nate is just an absolute disgrace.
> No
Gill has a knack for pure denial.
DREMT, Nate knows what kind of motion orbital motion is yet he will allow Ball4 to call it a translation and won’t even answer the question because he knows all the sources oppose his viewpoint.
Its clear intellectual dishonesty. There is no point in arguing with him because he will just lie and refuse to answer explicit questions.
> what kind of motion orbital motion is
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
“Its clear intellectual dishonesty. There is no point in arguing with him because he will just lie and refuse to answer explicit questions.”
Classic projection, from habitual liar Bill.
In this instance DREMT is the one refusing to answer the explicit question asked several times:
What is the mechanism he thinks tells him the OPR ‘base motion’ for planetary motion must the MOTL?
If he cannot answer this, then his entire OPR argument is MOOT.
Oh well.
Yes, Bill, Nate just refuses to help out. Ball4 thinks "translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis)" can be either movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR, dependent on location of observation, which is completely and utterly wrong. Never mind, we’ll just keep discussing this, pointlessly, for years on end, never getting anywhere, because of people like Ball4 and Nate.
Nate says:
”In this instance DREMT is the one refusing to answer the explicit question asked several times:
What is the mechanism he thinks tells him the OPR base motion for planetary motion must the MOTL?
If he cannot answer this, then his entire OPR argument is MOOT.
Oh well.”
Nate tries desperately to erect a strawman to give himself an excuse for not answering the question about what kind of motion is orbital motion.
The mechanism of the base motion of planetary motion is gravitational influence of the orbited body that can be seen as the single sidereal rotation of every planet and moon that orbits. Additional rotations only occur when the planet or moon has a spin on its internal axis that adds rotations to the sidereal rotation.
You just have a problem with properly counting rotations by failing to recognize the two fundamentally different rotations. . .and as a result of this failure you cannot describe the type of motion that orbital motion is. So while I answered your question you no doubt will try to dream up another excuse to not answer my question.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Yes, Bill, Nate just refuses to help out. Ball4 thinks “translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis)” can be either movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR, dependent on location of observation, which is completely and utterly wrong. Never mind, well just keep discussing this, pointlessly, for years on end, never getting anywhere, because of people like Ball4 and Nate.”
Indeed he has no cohesive theory and keeps asking again and again what the mechanism of orbital motion is, refusing even to recognize that the answer has been given numerous times.
Bottom line is the base motion is the MOTL and that becomes clear as it cannot be duplicated by two separate motions, nor can it be further reduced. Astrophysics tells us that’s the case. These guys just confound a physical ”base motion” with a useful analytical reduction of the motion. Physics tells us that the motion of an orbiting and spinning object will in the absence of confounding forces will eventually reduce to the MOTL and reduce no more.
“The mechanism of the base motion of planetary motion is gravitational influence of the orbited body that can be seen as the single sidereal rotation of every planet”
What is it that you think can be seen? And what mechanism. And whatever you say you need to get DREMT’s approval.
“Indeed he has no cohesive theory and keeps asking again and again what the mechanism of orbital motion is, refusing even to recognize that the answer has been given numerous times.”
HAs it?
I hope you don’t mean ball on a string, or ball on a rotating arm in the video?
None of those act like gravity.
My cohesive theory is in the Principia. Newton solved the 2-body gravity problem, and it produces THIS result for an orbit.
https://ionaphysics.org/classroom/Assignments/Newton%27s%20Cannon/index.html
The solution is NOT a rotation on an external axis like the MOTL.
Notice the ball has no rotation at all!
Nate says:
”The mechanism of the base motion of planetary motion is gravitational influence of the orbited body that can be seen as the single sidereal rotation of every planet”
What is it that you think can be seen? And what mechanism.
————————-
Nate I very clearly said ”the mechanism of the base motion” was the gravitational influence of the orbited body” If that wasn’t clear enough that you didn’t understand that the gravitational force is acting on the orbiting planet or moon. I suspect you have trouble adding 2+2 also when it conflicts with your ideology.
Seems you don’t believe in gravity as you have also been denying that the other planets can’t modify the earth’s orbit around the sun.
The only way they would not do that is they themselves have no gravity. The net gravitational force on an object which would be vectors from the sun and each planet. The net force of those vectors would determine the acceleration of earth toward the sun.
“Nate I very clearly said the mechanism of the base motion was the gravitational influence of the orbited body If that wasnt clear enough that you didnt understand that the gravitational force is acting on the orbiting planet or moon.”
So nothing of substance to offer then.
My model from Newton above shows the influence of gravity does not produce your base motion MOTL.
Neither you nor DREMT can support your claim that the mechanism involved in planetary motion produces the MOTL as the OPR ‘base motion’
And use of your ‘base motion’ would be a major hindrance to representing planetary motion by astronomers.
"Indeed he has no cohesive theory and keeps asking again and again what the mechanism of orbital motion is, refusing even to recognize that the answer has been given numerous times.
Bottom line is the base motion is the MOTL…"
Is he bringing up "base motion", then? No doubt he’s getting that all wrong, as usual. I tried to explain, in a one-off discussion I had with him recently, before putting him firmly back on "ignore", that the concept of "base motion" applied to objects moving in a circular "orbit", objects like the ball on a string, wooden horse on a MGR, yo-yo on a frictionless axle, Tim’s toy horse on the turntable and on the XY plotter, etc etc. All those examples. I was just using it to try to explain something to him, that obviously went over his head. Never mind. The "base motion" is just either "rotation about an external axis", or "translation in a circle".
I did say that when it comes to objects in a real orbit, we need to move on to the concept of "orbit without spin", which is related, but subtly different. The trouble with Nate is, he doesn’t really pay attention to what you say, as he has no interest in understanding.
Nate says:
Nate I very clearly said the mechanism of the base motion was the gravitational influence of the orbited body If that wasnt clear enough that you didnt understand that the gravitational force is acting on the orbiting planet or moon.
So nothing of substance to offer then.
My model from Newton above shows the influence of gravity does not produce your base motion MOTL.
——————-
Now Nate is just throwing stuff at the wall. He is too embarrassed to even describe how his non-gravitational model works as it has no doubt been repetitively shot down.
Better for him to just stomp his feet like a 3 year old having a hissy fit and insist that gravity is not the mechanism. Sorry Nate I am not going to play your sandbox games.
Bill is full of childish taunts, but offers no explanation for how gravity is a mechanism for the OPR ‘base motion’ of the MOTL.
“even describe how his non-gravitational model works”
Not interested, I showed you how gravity produces an orbit, and isn’t the MOTL.
Nate says:
”Not interested, I showed you how gravity produces an orbit, and isnt the MOTL.”
Nate imagines how he put a planet or moon in orbit and . . .video taped it? LMAO!
“Is he bringing up “base motion”, then? No doubt hes getting that all wrong, as usual. I tried to explain, in a one-off discussion I had with him recently, before putting him firmly back on “ignore”, that the concept of “base motion” applied to objects moving in a circular “orbit”, objects like the ball on a string, wooden horse on a MGR, yo-yo on a frictionless axle, Tims toy horse on the turntable and on the XY plotter, etc etc. All those examples. I was just using it to try to explain something to him, that obviously went over his head. Never mind. The “base motion” is just either “rotation about an external axis”, or “translation in a circle”.”
Ah, as I noted, the mechanism only determines what the motion IS only for Earthbound devices, not for gravity in space.
The TEAM is wisely back-sliding away from their long-standing claim that planetary orbits having a ‘base motion’ like the MOTL!
“I did say that when it comes to objects in a real orbit, we need to move on to the concept of “orbit without spin”, which is related, but subtly different.”
‘related, but subtly different’
OMG. Vagueness, the best friend of the obfuscator.
Nate having lost this argument a long time ago now refuses to support what kind of motion he believes an orbit to be . . .obviously because he no longer wants to admit it. So he continues along refusing to answer the question: What kind of motion out of the kinematic toolkit is orbital motion.
Bill, it doesn’t matter how much time you spend trying to explain things to these people…they just don’t get it. It’s as simple as that.
Yep ask a basic question and the response is to bury his head in the sand. And of course you depend upon Willard accusing you of asking for a free sammich.
Pretty sad when you have folks claiming ”settled science” who can neither explain their position nor even attempt to.
“Nate having lost this argument a long time ago now refuses to support what kind of motion he believes an orbit to be”
As usual, Bill has not been following the discussion, but feels the need to weigh-in with nonsense and ad-homs anyway.
“Bill, it doesnt matter how much time you spend trying to explain things to these peoplethey just dont get it. Its as simple as that.”
Yes that is what Flat Earthers tell each other all the time about the normal folk.
Well, Bill…”orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL as far as the “Non-Spinners” are concerned. We have the ball on a string as our viable physical model of that. “Spinners” believe it is as per the MOTR, but have no viable physical model. Anything they suggest is either objectively spinning, or has nothing to represent gravity. That’s that.
“Spinners believe it is as per the MOTR, but have no viable physical model. Anything they suggest is either objectively spinning, or has nothing to represent gravity.”
FALSE!
Newton gave us a physical model that represents gravity with his law of gravity, 300 y ago.
I showed you with the simulator of this model that it produces an ORBIT. And the body does not move like the MOTL.
https://ionaphysics.org/classroom/Assignments/Newton%27s%20Cannon/index.html
Notice the ball has no rotation at all.
The point is that whatever rotation a body has prior to being placed into an orbit, then it continues to have that rotation when in orbit.
Because, the effect of gravity is simply to change the TRANSLATIONAL motion of the body.
A long enough comment from Nate that he could finally be correcting Ball4, as he should have done days ago. Who knows?
Nate says:
Spinners believe it is as per the MOTR, but have no viable physical model. Anything they suggest is either objectively spinning, or has nothing to represent gravity.
FALSE!
Newton gave us a physical model that represents gravity with his law of gravity, 300 y ago.
———————–
Not false. You don’t believe an orbit is a rotation caused by gravity. You also don’t believe that the gravity of the planets contribute their forces to the net acceleration of gravity from the sun modifying the earth’s distance from the sun. Thats certainly not Newton’s model.
Fact is these guys will lie about anything to pursue their hidden agendas.
“Not false. You dont believe an orbit is a rotation caused by gravity.”
Not a question of belief. It is an empirical fact.
The cannonball demo is simply the solution to Newton’s law of gravity of a planet acting on a sphere given an initial velocity.
It shows that gravity only changes the translational motion of the body, to make it follow an orbital path, which is an ellipse.
Its a lie there has ever been a cannonball demonstration. Any way current scientific thinking states that cannonball’s don’t remain airborne long enough to demonstrate the full effects of gravity on them. Newton can be excused for failing to note this as it wasn’t until long after he was dead that it was noticed.
Surely Nate’s not trying to suggest Newton’s Cannonball is the "Spinners" model of "orbit without spin"!? He always used to say that the orientation of the cannonball was unknown…now he’s trying to make out it’s like the MOTR!? Oh dear. Talk about going back on yourself.
“Its a lie there has ever been a cannonball demonstration.”
Yes there has. I showed it to you!
Newton’s Law of gravity has been thoroughly tested by experiment. Newton’s laws of motion have been thoroughly tested by experiment.
Spacecraft are launched into orbit based on the application of these laws, and they work very well!
The demo simply shows the results of applying those well tested laws to the quite simple situation of a projectile fired with constant velocity from a tall mountain (outside the atmosphere).
Is Bill doubting that these laws are valid? Or is he doubting that Newton’s laws indeed predict the elliptical orbit shown?
” He always used to say that the orientation of the cannonball was unknownnow hes trying to make out its like the MOTR!? Oh dear. Talk about going back on yourself.”
DREMT accidentally reveals he read my posts. Whoops!
Indeed the cannonball is not rotating, is it? And indeed going into orbit does not start it rotating.
Because Newton’s solution of this problem does not produce rotation, unless it already existed in the object as it was fired.
I have asked DREMT and Bill, repeatedly, how gravity provides the mechanism to make the MOTL the ‘base motion’ for orbiting objects
And neither one is able to produce an answer. Nothing. Nada.
All they can do is talk about mechanisms that are NOT gravity, like the ball on the string, or the moon on a motor on a rotating arm.
FYI, None of those are actually gravity.
So their claim that the MOTL is the OPR ‘base motion’ for planetary orbits is simply unsupported.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Surely Nates not trying to suggest Newtons Cannonball is the ”Spinners” model of ”orbit without spin”?
Yep as I related, he brought that 17th Century thought experiment backup in response to me.
It lives in Nate brain like Manabe and Wetherald’s thought experiment of how CO2 backradiation would override convection.
Nate lies and calls it a demonstration when its merely a 17th century thought experiment and even denies main stream science findings on how gravity tidal locks orbiting objects. . .making the MOTL the basic motion outcome for all rotating objects if nothing else interferes.
Nate says:
”The demo simply shows the results of applying those well tested laws to the quite simple situation of a projectile fired with constant velocity from a tall mountain (outside the atmosphere).”
LMAO! Nate there are zero mountains with the peaks outside the atmosphere on earth. Do you even understand the difference between a demonstration and a thought experiment?
“LMAO! Nate there are zero mountains with the peaks outside the atmosphere on earth. Do you even understand the difference between a demonstration and a thought experiment?”
Bill’s lack of imagination is his latest flimsy excuse to dismiss evidence.
And he tries to argue that Newton’s laws have not been tested well enough to apply them to known situations in the real world!
We cannot spend $Billions on new space missions, to planets, comets or asteroids, because those specific trajectories have never been tested experimentally, says Bill.
Oh well, that’s the end of space exploration, construction of new building designs, new machines, etc, because they have never been previously done! sarc
” main stream science findings on how gravity tidal locks orbiting objects.”
Indeed, after millions of years, given a tight orbit, and a slightly asymmetric body, we can get tidal locking.
Obviously that is no relevant to the cannonball and its first orbit after being fired.
Nor is relevant to any of the planets in our solar system, only some of the moons.
Even our own Moon does not orbit and spin like the MOTL.
It is not a rotation around an external axis. Its orbit is elliptical. It doesnt always point to the Earth. Its rotation is not around the Earth it is around a tilted axis.
Thus to use the MOTL as the base motion, one needs to make complex translational and rotational corrections to get to the real motion of the Moon.
To inflict the MOTL as a ‘base motion’ onto astronomers is to make all descriptions of actual planetary motion a royal pain in the ass!
Why would we desire to do that? To satisfy the egos of a few internet cranks?
Houston, that is a no-go.
Nate says:
Bills lack of imagination is his latest flimsy excuse to dismiss evidence.
—————————-
If its imagination then you are liar that its a demonstration. You convict yourself.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”And he tries to argue that Newtons laws have not been tested well enough to apply them to known situations in the real world!”
——————
Thats ridiculous. Newton’s law doesn’t exclude tidal locking a moon. It is in fact why it occurs.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”We cannot spend $Billions on new space missions, to planets, comets or asteroids, because those specific trajectories have never been tested experimentally, says Bill.”
Thats total BS. You are just throwing shiit at the wall to try to hide from the truth. Tidal locking of satellites is a known technology. . .its just not used as putting some small thrusters allow for faster orientation and a change in orientation or a correction should the satellite be perturbed. If you think you have to have that insurance policy then why design the entire satellite around an ideal tidal locking orientation? Cutting corners in design and construction involves a cost benefit analysis.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Oh well, thats the end of space exploration, construction of new building designs, new machines, etc, because they have never been previously done! sarc”
—————————
Nate is going full production in the strawman business. You are a joke.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Indeed, after millions of years, given a tight orbit, and a slightly asymmetric body, we can get tidal locking.”
If a moon has a rotation on its internal axis thats a whole lot of energy. That doesn’t mean that Newton’s law of gravitation is NOT at work fulltime slowly removing it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
Obviously that is no relevant to the cannonball and its first orbit after being fired.
Nor is relevant to any of the planets in our solar system, only some of the moons.
——————————–
Now you are talking idealistically. A cannon ball fired from a perfect cannon from the top of the mountain outside the atmosphere of a non-rotating planet is imagined to have zero rotation. But sufficient forces from the gravity of the planet are fully in place already for a full rotation to occur and no other physical interference is require. All you are doing is imagining that has never been tested. So what if takes time? for the bowls floating on a spinning bowl of water take time to come up to speed? Newton’s Law of Gravity demands that it occurs with zero change in anything. And since your perfect world can never exist even for a microsecond you are standing on shifting grounds.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”Thus to use the MOTL as the base motion, one needs to make complex translational and rotational corrections to get to the real motion of the Moon.”
———————-
There is no perfect motion anywhere in the world Nate. All you are doing is saying no motion can be classified. And you continue to avoid classification of the moon has you have no viable place to stand by your own demands of perfection.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”To inflict the MOTL as a base motion onto astronomers is to make all descriptions of actual planetary motion a royal pain in the ass!
Why would we desire to do that? To satisfy the egos of a few internet cranks?
Houston, that is a no-go.”
——————————-
I would say you pretty much lack any experience in life. Recognizing the moon’s orbit rotation is done by many scientists and engineers despite lack of perfection and it doesn’t make their jobs any more difficult at all.
DREMT and myself have both repetitively recognized that one can think of it either way with zero problems.
You make it sound like the end of the world. Bottom line is the MOTL is the best model for the motion of the moon and it requires zero sweat to say so.
You refuse to answer that question and name the type of motion it is, but you do say above ”translational” while the moon has absolutely no translation motion occurring at all it is rotating from the acceleration of gravity around the earth full 100% of the time and to be a translation that rotation would have to stop 100% momentarily. . .which would be a violation of the law of conservation of energy if you didn’t have a force to do that.
“Why would we desire to do that? To satisfy the egos of a few internet cranks?
Houston, that is a no-go.
–
I would say you pretty much lack any experience in life. ”
Pulleez.
Your ‘experience’ tells you astronomers will be pleased with your ‘base motion’ making their work much more difficult?
That’s not experience, that is hubris, and delus.ional thinking.
“Bottom line is the MOTL is the best model for the motion of the moon and it requires zero sweat to say so.”
As explained, no it is not. And you havent demonstrated why it would be.
“Now you are talking idealistically. A cannon ball fired from a perfect cannon from the top of the mountain outside the atmosphere of a non-rotating planet is imagined to have zero rotation. But sufficient forces from the gravity of the planet are fully in place already for a full rotation to occur and no other physical interference is require.”
Evidence? Gravity does not produce torque on a perfectly spherical body. Thus Newton’s cannonball, when it goes into orbit, only experiences a trajectory change, ie the position of its COM follows an elliptical path, as the demo shows. At least you are no longer denying the demo!
“So what if takes time?”
Yeah, so what? For a spherical cannonball, it would be infinite. Not so far for any of the planets in the solar system.
Because a 1-1 spin-orbit resonance it is only one TYPE of orbit, not universal to all orbits.
Nate says:
”Evidence? Gravity does not produce torque on a perfectly spherical body.”
There are no spherically perfect bodies in the presence of gravity Nate. Thus your idea of Newton’s law of gravitation is simply just wrong, simplified to the point of error and incorrect conclusions. Thus your challenge here is beyond hollow. It simply doesn’t exist.
“There are no spherically perfect bodies in the presence of gravity Nate.”
Yet tidal locking is not universal is it? Among the planets in our solar system, none have a 1-1 spin orbit resonance, which is simply ONE type of orbit.
Sorry.
Nate says:
There are no spherically perfect bodies in the presence of gravity Nate.
Yet tidal locking is not universal is it? Among the planets in our solar system, none have a 1-1 spin orbit resonance, which is simply ONE type of orbit.
—————————–
A pointless point completely lacking any distinction. There also are zero planets or moons like the MOTR.
Sorry.
Since you place value in such a distinction. About half the moon’s in our solar system are as the MOTL and none are like your favored base motion the MOTR. That’s a distinction that actually holds water.
“Thus to use the MOTL as the base motion, one needs to make complex translational and rotational corrections to get to the real motion of the Moon.
–
There is no perfect motion anywhere in the world Nate. All you are doing is saying no motion can be classified. And you continue to avoid classification of the moon has you have no viable place to stand by your own demands of perfection.”
YEs indeed. But the entire point of Kepler’s discovery was that he saw imperfections in the fit of observations to the previous models.
He found a much better model to describe planetary motion, that accounted for almost all of the ‘imperfections’.
The model he discovered was that of a translation of planets, with variable speed along an elliptical path. This was later explained by Newton. And rotation of the body is separately modeled.
To use a non-spinner model, a rotation of the body around an external axis, is a bad fit to the observations.
The point for astronomy is to use the better model. Why shouldn’t they?
Nate says:
”YEs indeed. But the entire point of Keplers discovery was that he saw imperfections in the fit of observations to the previous models.
He found a much better model to describe planetary motion, that accounted for almost all of the imperfections.
The model he discovered was that of a translation of planets, with variable speed along an elliptical path. This was later explained by Newton. And rotation of the body is separately modeled.”
Total BS. You have no source, Kepler or otherwise, that says the moon’s basic orbit motion is a translation. You are just making that up. The ways you may choose to model something doesn’t instantly mean its reality or that any such motion could exist independently. A model is unreal and is only a close approximation of something real.
The fact is what you are doing with the discussion of the gravity of other factors varying the distance of earth from the sun is clinging like a drowning rat to a piece of flotsam, hanging on to the model inculcated into you and denying that science exists where the gravity of other planets will vary the gravitational acceleration of the earth toward the sun via the sum of the gravitation pull on earth. You can continue to pull a bag over your head to imitate you typical approach to these discussions of burying your head in the sand but I am not buying it.
The fact is what best approximation of an orbit without rotation on an internal axis is the MOTL. You can think of it anyway you want, it doesn’t make jobs more difficult, it doesn’t deny the use of different models for limited purposes but if you don’t get the basic reality you will never ever be able to advance science beyond the point that it has already been advanced.
One has to have some real vision to say, for example, maybe we should run the calculations on the acceleration on earth of the alignment of gas giants if your head is stuck in the sand.
“The fact is what best approximation of an orbit without rotation on an internal axis is the MOTL.”
Total BS. You have no source. Nothing at all but your feeling.
My evidence is Kepler’s Three Laws of planetary motion. And Newton’s derivation of them.
Is there a fourth one about the orientation of the body always pointing to the barycenter, that I’m not aware of?
No, there isn’t.
“You have no source, Kepler or otherwise, that says the moons basic orbit motion is a translation.”
Nor did I claim that! Strawman alert.
I have specifically stated that orbital motion as observed by Kepler and derived by Newton, was nothing more than a translation. I also stated that to describe the FULL motion of a body you need to also specify its rotation.
For our Moon, we can describe its elliptical orbit, and THEN specify its rotation is synchronous, and around an internal axis tilted 6.7 degrees to its orbital axis.
To use the MOTL as the base motion for our Moon, would then require large and not simple, translational and rotational corrections to get the actual motion.
Why would anyone want to do that?
Nate says:
My evidence is Keplers Three Laws of planetary motion. And Newtons derivation of them.
Is there a fourth one about the orientation of the body always pointing to the barycenter, that Im not aware of?
No, there isnt.
—————————–
Why would there need to be a 4th one Nate if your first three were insufficient to mount a decent argument from?
Your insufficiency is duly noted.
And no there is no law that says anything about the orientation of the moon because its always possible to have another force (than gravity of the orbited planet) or an angular momentum from an expired force that does put a spin on the moon’s COM.
Nate says:
”You have no source, Kepler or otherwise, that says the moons basic orbit motion is a translation.”
Nor did I claim that! Strawman alert.
————————-
Sounds like you just did claim that. But we already knew that and so did you.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”I have specifically stated that orbital motion as observed by Kepler and derived by Newton, was nothing more than a translation. ”
Yes you did without a single source backing you up. But we have multiple sources that say: ”A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same
direction during the motion.”
For example: https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
You keep losing and keep coming back for more punishment. Are you a masochist. . .one of those activists who just praying they get beat up by authority?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”To use the MOTL as the base motion for our Moon, would then require large and not simple, translational and rotational corrections to get the actual motion.”
——————-
No thats a lie. You claimed that Newton’s Law of Gravitation specified the elliptical orbit solely by modifying the muzzle velocity of the cannon.
“And no there is no law that says anything about the orientation of the moon”
Thanks. Then, to summarize, the your argument cannot be supported.
“I have specifically stated that orbital motion as observed by Kepler and derived by Newton, was nothing more than a translation.
Yes you did without a single source backing you up.”
False. Keplers laws are my source. They say NOTHING about orbit except
1. What is the path through space. An ellipse.
2. How does the velocity change during the orbit.
3. What is the period of the orbit.
Afterall, except for Earth, Kepler had NO knowledge of the rotation or orientation of the planets. So his laws can only be describing TRANSALTIONAL MOTION.
“But we have multiple sources that say: A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same
direction during the motion.
Here you are MISREPRESENTING what I stated.
Here it is again:
“I have specifically stated that orbital motion as observed by Kepler and derived by Newton, was nothing more than a translation.
I also stated that to describe the FULL MOTION of a body you need to ALSO SPECIFY its rotation.”
So the full motion, when specified, is NOT simply a translation!
It is a sum of a translation plus a rotation.
What part of this do you NOT GET?
Nate continues to lie.
You said: ”Not a question of belief. It is an empirical fact.
The cannonball demo is simply the solution to Newtons law of gravity of a planet acting on a sphere given an initial velocity.”
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/software/NewtonsCannon.html
You lie when you say its a demonstration of a sphere when its not. Its a demonstration of a ”point” with no dimensions as it is in the formula for orbital motion. But you lie and call it a sphere and claim that gravity exerts no force on sphere when its not a sphere. All Newton is showing the movement of an object with no demonstrations having the point fire out of the cannon. Run the animation and tell me if that ”point” is translating in a straight line or rotating around the earth. You have no source saying its going in a straight line you just imagined that and refuse to cough up a single scientific source in support of your argument other than banter when one describes orbital motion.
Nate says:
”It shows that gravity only changes the translational motion of the body, to make it follow an orbital path, which is an ellipse.”
Analytical reduction. There are no ”objects” that move like that. No one has ever seen one you just imagine it.
Nate says:
”And no there is no law that says anything about the orientation of the moon”
Thanks. Then, to summarize, the your argument cannot be supported.
———————-
Thank you Nate for conceding to my argument and giving up on claiming the Newton’s laws of gravity prevents the MOTL motion which is the natural motion all bodies gravitate to in the cannonball demonstration. For your MOTR you would require a perfect secondary force to create the perfect orientation of the moon required by your base motion being the MOTR.
I guess we are done here.
“You lie when you say its a demonstration of a sphere when its not.”
False. It is obviously a sphere. Its a cannonball.
“Its a demonstration of a point with no dimensions as it is in the formula for orbital motion. But you lie and call it a sphere and claim that gravity exerts no force on sphere when its not a sphere.”
No I do not. How asinine.
Obviously I think gravity exerts a force on this sphere which is a cannonball, else its would not be curving into an orbit!
“Run the animation and tell me if that point is translating in a straight line or rotating around the earth. You have no source saying its going in a straight line you just imagined that and refuse to cough up a single scientific source in support of your argument other than banter when one describes orbital motion.”
Umm, I never claimed it is translating in a straight line!
You obviously are utterly confused about what a TRANSALATION is, and that it can be motion on a CURVED path, which is exactly what the ball’s motion is!
“I guess we are done here.”
I guess so, since you’ve now departed completely from reality.
Seems to me Nate is you have extrapolated without a single source supporting your extrapolation that given Newton’s point mass having no mass outside of its COM means objects that do have mass outside of its COM would also not rotate.
Yet we know Newton’s gravity does cause mass outside of the COM to rotate around the COM and I guess we can extrapolate that Newton hadn’t yet thought about that issue because he was merely creating an allegory for his point mass formula for trajectories.
Today we know that the same force that causes Newton’s point mass to rotate if the speed is correct will also cause objects with dimensions to rotate, if the trajectory doesn’t crash into the ground or another mountain.
“Today we know that the same force that causes Newtons point mass to rotate if the speed is correct will also cause objects with dimensions to rotate,”
No we don’t. That is your FEELING, but there is no physics behind your assertion that gravity should cause the mass outside the COM in a spherical ball to rotate.
“I guess we can extrapolate that Newton hadnt yet thought about that issue because he was merely creating an allegory for his point mass formula for trajectories.”
Actually he thought about it quite a lot.
“Newton’s Shell Theorem states essentially two things, and has a very important consequence. First of all, it says that the gravitational field outside a spherical shell having total mass M is the same as if the entire mass M is concentrated at its center (center of mass).”
Thus he showed that the gravitational interaction between two spheres is the same as that between two point masses.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Physics_(Boundless)/5%3A_Uniform_Circular_Motion_and_Gravitation/5.5%3A_Newtons_Law_of_Universal_Gravitation
He found that
” Two big objects can be considered as point-like masses, if the distance between them is very large compared to their sizes or if they are spherically symmetric. For these cases the mass of each object can be represented as a point mass located at its center-of-mass.”
Well if he actually said that he would have been wrong about that.
And that it would indicate he did not yet understand that nothing can be spherically symmetric rotating on its own internal axis in a gravitational field.
The gravity will deform the object in order to exert its grip on the object.
I strongly suspect that your quote is not from Newton.
Newton I am sure had a far better grip on the scientific method and what one can actually verify from an experiment. To verify a fact in an experiment you have to physically test it.
The allegory of the cannon fired on a mountain obviously only tests the orbital motion because Newton in developing his theory actually did treat the cannonball as a point mass.
And absolutely did not test nor attempted to test your hypothesis about if the cannonball would rotate on its own COM.
That’s because a point mass has nothing to rotate around a COM.
Newton was smart enough to know that. He is simply being interpreted by lesser men after he died.
A little addendum about
” … the answer is that the moon does rotate with respect to space… ”
No less astonishing is this fixation on the nonsense that a body could rotate with respect to a fixed point in space but not with respect to something else.
Nowhere would you find a scientific document that claims such nonsense, because with celestial bodies it is not their motions that are observed/calculated with respect to something, but the duration of these motions.
Nowhere did Newton ever write that Jupiter would revolve with respect to the fixed stars; instead, he wrote that Jupiter revolves with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours and 56 minutes.
” To put it more simply, the Foucault pendulum cannot distinguish between ‘orbiting’ and ‘spinning’, the two motions at the heart of the debate. ”
According to this extraordinary discovery, the movement of the Foucault pendulum on Earth cannot be evidence of the Earth’s rotation around its polar axis!
Don’t be silly, Bindidon. The movement of the Foucault pendulum on Earth is evidence that the Earth is changing its orientation wrt an inertial reference frame. To "Spinners", that change in orientation will be 100% due to "spinning". To "Non-Spinners", that change in orientation will be mostly due to "spinning", with a tiny bit due to "orbiting".
” To ‘Non-Spinners’, that change in orientation will be mostly due to ‘spinning’, with a tiny bit due to ‘orbiting’. ”
*
Thus, as I always thought, this is, for ‘Non-Spinners’, valid ONLY for Earth, but not for the Moon, just because it ‘shows us always the same face’.
You move since years from one contradiction to the next.
*
If you were a crack in spherical trigonometry, you would understand that
– while over a year, craters on the Moon look as if they would stay on the same place
– their local selenographic coordinates, obtained by successively disconnecting them from terrestrial dependencies, show that they actually don’t.
*
Nikola Tesla would have understood that immediately after reading Mayer’s 1750 treatise. He didn’t.
“Thus, as I always thought, this is, for ‘Non-Spinners’, valid ONLY for Earth, but not for the Moon, just because it ‘shows us always the same face’.
You move since years from one contradiction to the next.”
Not sure what you’re trying to say. What is “this” that you claim is valid only for Earth, according to “Non-Spinners”?
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
“Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
And Mike Flynn ends up monkeying Graham D. Warner.
“And Mike Flynn ends up monkeying Graham D. Warner.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Foucault pendulum on Earth is evidence that the Earth is changing its orientation wrt an inertial reference frame.”
Objective rotation detected? Yep.
“To “Non-Spinners”, that change in orientation will be mostly due to “spinning”, with a tiny bit due to “orbiting””
So rotation around 2 different axes is what they want to inflict on astronomers?
The Foucault pendulum detects only one rotation around one axis, the one through the N. Pole, with period 23h 56 min.
Tim Folkerts, you wrote this”
“The fact that these two motions proceed at differing rates should convince people that orbit and rotation are two separate motions.
* The moon ORBITS THE EARTH with varying angular speed.
* The moon ROTATES ON ITS AXIS with constant angular speed.”
As long as we agree that the axis of rotation is the earth-moon center of gravity, I am with you. This location is very close to the earth center of gravity and moves around as the earth spins and the moon orbits. This leads to variation in ocean tides.
“As long as we agree that the axis of rotation is the earth-moon center of gravity, I am with you. ”
But the barycenter is NOT the axis of the moon’s rotation, so we don’t agree. The parts of the moon are not moving in a circle (ie not rotating) around that axis.
I could be just a little more precise.
* The moon ORBITS THE EARTH-MOON COM with varying angular speed.
* The moon ROTATES ON ITS AXIS THROUGH ITS OWN COM with constant angular speed.
“The moon ROTATES ON ITS AXIS THROUGH ITS OWN COM with constant angular speed..
Well, no, it doesn’t, not with respect to the Earth. Maybe you are talking about the phenomenon where all sides of the Moon are seen by an observer outside its orbit.
Shouting your assertion through the use of ALL CAPS doesn’t help. As Newton pointed out (being even more clever than myself) the Moon falls continuously towards the Earth. As we are on the Earth, we only ever see the bottom of the falling object, plus a little of the sides, when we view it from a position not directly below it.
All irrelevant, really, isn’t it?
You are just trying to avoid admitting that you can’t describe the GHE, aren’t you? Don’t worry, I’ll keep reminding you.
Carry on.
> All irrelevant, really, isnt it?
You got that right, Mike Flynn.
Your Chewbacca Defense is irrelevant!
Swenson,
Oh Boy, are you confused.
“Shouting your assertion through the use of ALL CAPS doesnt help. As Newton pointed out (being even more clever than myself) the Moon falls continuously towards the Earth.”
The Moon is not falling continuously towards the Earth.
Apogee is 252,000 miles, and Perigee is 226,000 miles.
So for half the orbit, the Moon is moving away from the Earth, not falling towards it.
It is in free fall though, continuously accelerating towards the Earth.
You are not nearly as clever as Newton.
tim s…”the most important mission of NASA to install one of these (pendulum) at one of the poles of the moon and prove the thought experiment”.
***
They have one better than that, they use sophisticated gyros on their spaceraft to maintain an independent coordinate system wrt the stars.
As far as your rotation is concerned, Dremt came up with that a while back, using an exterior axis. In other words, the Moon is rotating about Earth as its exterior axis.
ent…”Especially Gordon Robertson who is convinced that every one of the hundreds of Foucault pendulums around the world is fraudulent”.
***
All I have claimed is this. The pendulum measures a wobble in Earth’s axis, not rotation. That is especially tree near my latitude where the pendulum is pointed at an angle to the axes. How could that possibly indicate rotation?
binny…”But do you really mean that ALL documents I collected about the lunar spin evaluations”
***
I have yet to read one of your documents in which they actually address the Moon’s alleged rotation. Most of them are discussing libration, an apparent rotation of a few degrees.
Step 1 and 2 – Pure Denial & Sammich Request
Robertson manifestly suffers of dementia or is incredibly dishonest.
Each time I post a list of documents related to the lunar spin
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
the ignoramus-in-chief replies the same, dumb stuff:
” I have yet to read one of your documents in which they actually address the Moon’s alleged rotation. Most of them are discussing libration, an apparent rotation of a few degrees. ”
*
Robertson has been shown numerous times that these documents all have to do with the lunar spin, but he always, always, always resorts to the same nonsense.
He is either sick or thick.
It appears the cult missed the determination by Tim S.
“…but it does not spin about its axis.”
The cult only sees what it wants to see.
… when observing from Earth.
It’s funny watching them squirm.
Yeah, poor Clint R squirms a lot in avoiding reality.
See what I mean? Twisting, squirming, distorting. It’s all that Ball4 can do.
” when observing from Earth.”
Indeed so. That is the entire basis for the erroneous thinking that the Moon does not rotate on its own axis.
And observing from Earth means observing along a radial line between the Earth and Moon, which is rotating.
Thus, only when observing from a rotating reference frame, does the Moon appear to be not rotating, as Clint admitted.
Mind you, they’re all just as bad as each other.
In some ways, TS is not much different than an ordinary crank.
Now that he did a complete 180 and decided the moon does spin, you mean?
Graham D. Warner still pretends that we’re in speaking terms.
Well, you follow me about from thread to thread, jumping in wherever I’m trying to talk to other people, so I certainly assumed you want to talk to me.
Graham D. Warner acts as if he owned the blog.
Perhaps he’s taking his nickname more srsly than he presumes.
You can follow me around from thread to thread, jumping in wherever I’m trying to talk to other people if you wish, Little Willy. It’s a free blog. It just then seems strange when you try to claim we are not on speaking terms!
[ME] In some ways, TS is not much different than an ordinary crank.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Now that he did a complete 180 and decided the moon does spin, you mean?
[ME] Graham D. Warner still pretends that were in speaking terms.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Well, you follow me about from thread to thread
Yes.
Gordon Robertson, your reply mixes denial with confusion about basic facts:
1/ “ So, a velocity vector of 5 m/s starting on a circle at 5,0 and moving around a circle, changes direction through 360 degrees but it is still representing a velocity of 5 m/s.”
You are confusing speed which is a scalar, and velocity which is a vector and thus consists of magnitude and direction. The magnitude of a velocity vector is speed.
Also, a unit vector is a normalized version of the original vector; although you may be confusing the unit vector with the basis vector, I can’t tell.
2/ “ If I have a vector representing a 1 kg mass and another representing a 100 kg mass, they can have the same direction and same magnitude but the realities are hardly the same.”
Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Your example makes no sense!
3/ “ What does ‘distinct vector’ mean?”
Seriously? Whether you are traveling at 90 miles/hour heading North, or traveling at 90 miles/hour heading South, you are experiencing two distinct realities.
4/ “ The x and y component are changing but not the resultant…
You are driving a car around a circular track and you keep the speedometer at 5 mph, is the car’s velocity changing?”
The components of a vector represent the contribution of each coordinate axis to the vector’s direction. The resultant changes with every change in the components.
Therefore, changing direction while maintaining a constant speed is by definition acceleration.
5/ You say: “If a force is acting steadily on a mass rotating in a circle, it does not mean the mass is accelerating.”
Consider a fighter jet flying at 800 mph making a turn in a 2 km radius, the pilot experiences ~2g’s of acceleration. The same fighter jet flying at 1000 mph making the same 2 km turn, exerts ~3g’s on the pilot. Ignore F= m*a at your own risk.
6/ “ Why should two vectors with equal magnitude and opposite directions have an acceleration?”
I’ll just repeat my comment and hope that you’ll read it carefully:
In the example where you “describe a simple illustration,“ the two velocity vectors have the same magnitude but different direction, hence an acceleration.
Regarding your closing paragraph, two words: Net force!
“speed which is a scalar, and velocity which is a vector and thus consists of magnitude and direction”
Agreed.
Corrigendum:
5/ You say: “If a force is acting steadily on a mass rotating in a circle, it does not mean the mass is accelerating.”
Consider a fighter jet flying at 800 mph making a turn in a 2 km radius, the pilot experiences
~2g’s~7g’s of acceleration. The same fighter jet flying at 1000 mph making the same 2 km turn, exerts~3g’s~10g’s on the pilot. Ignore F= m*a at your own risk.two points…
1)The fighter jet has a variable force powering it and the g-force is caused by the pilot accelerating using that internal force.
2)the G-force experienced is due to centrifugal forces, meaning forces a pilot would experience as his body tries to go straight at 1000 mpg while the aircraft pulls him in a direction his body does not want to go.
To a lesser extent, we can experience the same as we turn a corner in a car and the seat belt holds us in place.
I am talking about an unpowered body, the Moon, moving only under a radial gravitational force. Your jet fighter is accelerating and the Moon is not.
Gordon,
Except for the fact that the Moon moves with a greater speed when it is closer to the Earth than when it is farther from the Earth.
That is in accordance with Kepler’s laws for objects in elliptical orbits.
So yes, it is accelerating along its tangent line.
Sometimes the acceleration is negative, sometimes it is positive.
1/I gave you an example of a car moving on a circular track. The speedometer reads a constant velocity, it is not averaging the speed taken to orbit the track by the time taken. It actually measures the instantaneous velocity at any moment on the track.
Ergo, if the speedometer reads a constant 10 mph, it means the car is moving at a rate translating to 10 miles in an hour. On a trip, we speed up and slow down, and sometimes stop. That means the 10 mph no longer applies. However, if you judicially keep the speedometer reading 10 mph, you will go 10 miles in an hour.
Yes…a speedometer is actually a velocitymeter since it measures the tangential velocity (on a circle) at each instant. A speedometer is driven off a gear in the transmission where the gear has a ratio that indicates the angular velocity of the rear wheels, based on th angular velocity of the driveshaft. Knowing the diameter of the wheels, one can calculate the velocity of the vehicle by how far a tire should move in one revolution.
2/”Mass is a scalar, not a vector. Your example makes no sense!”
***
My point was that a vector only tells you magnitude and direction, not which body is in motion. Ergo, the vector is meaningless unless you specify a context. You were claiming that two equal vectors are identical. Well, the vectors may be identical but pretty useless if one represents a 1 kg mass and the other a 100 kg mass.
Anytime we were given a problem where vectors were applied, we were first given the details re the relationship of forces and masses, unless of course, the problem was one of kinematics. Then we applied a freebody diagram in which we replaced pertinent forces with vectors.
I get the feeling you regard vectors as real, much the way Einstein regarded time, as an actual, physical phenomenon. They are tools, nothing more.
3/”Whether you are traveling at 90 miles/hour heading North, or traveling at 90 miles/hour heading South, you are experiencing two distinct realities”.
***
And what is the reality? You, a mass, are moving 90 mph which suggests you are being propelled by a force. Force and mass are the reality and vectors nothing more than a model representing the force on a piece of paper. Does direction really matter?
One thing I learned in engineering was to keep the original problem in mind. That is, keep in mind what it is you are dealing with.
4/”The resultant changes with every change in the components”.
***
It’s the opposite. The resultant in our case represents the actual tangential velocity of a mass at an instant. If you want to know which component of the resultant acts in specific directions, then you can “calculate” the component values.
I understand the converse. If someone pushed me north while someone else pushes me west, I would likely move northwest as a resultant. However, a mass moving on a circle has only one parameter re velocity, it’s not due to two or more forces acting on it.
Remember…focus on the actual physical action. IMHO, that’s where Einstein messed up. He failed to consider forces and masses, only the kinematic equivalents of velocity and acceleration in a thought experiment. If he had honestly asked himself what space and time mean physically, he might have gotten his error.
No, I am not claiming to be smarter than Einstein, only that everyone is fallible, no matter how intelligent he/she may be. With Einstein, I think he let his ego and desperation get in the way. When you start claiming that Newton was wrong, you need more than a convoluted thought experiment to prove it.
6/”the two velocity vectors have the same magnitude but different direction, hence an acceleration”.
***
That is not the definition of acceleration. Acceleration requires a change in velocity, which is governed by the scalar quantity, not the direction.
Consider a velocity vector representing the velocity of a mass moving on a circle of radius 5. At 5,0, the vector with magnitude 5 points due north. The mass maintains the same velocity till 0,5 where it points due west. The magnitude is unchanged yet it has re-oriented through 90 degrees. Ergo, the mass is moving with a constant velocity.
Replace the mass with a real car driving the circle. Keep the speedometer reading 5 mph. The car’s direction will change through 90 degrees yet the velocity won’t change. And yes, it is velocity since it remains the same through the drive.
The irony here is that a force must be constantly applied to maintain a constant velocity. Go figure. But can you call it acceleration when the force is being applied to overcome deceleration? The Moon maintains it velocity through momentum with no tangential force applied.
“Yes… a speedometer is actually a velocitymeter”
No. A speedometer measures the magnitude of motion, or speed, it does not indicate direction, so it does not measure velocity.
A velocity meter would be a GPS unit, which can provide both speed and direction information.
You can build your own velocity meter; start here: https://www.gps.gov/support/user/mapfix/
Arkady, please stop trolling.
On Mercury’s perihelion precession delta
Apparently, Robertson – this blog’s most arrogant ignoramus – did not understand that Urbain Le Verrier and Simon Newcomb both computed Mercury’s perihelion precession exactly according to Newton’s laws, and discovered discrepancies between their computations and century-long observations.
Robertson never would be able to search let alone find documents confirming the impossibility to compute the correct precession when using only Newton’s framework.
Therefore, he can only discredit and denigrate scientists – and even insult them in a way that reminds me of the words used by German neo-Nazis.
*
Here is Newcomb’s full astronomy treatise
The elements of the four inner planets and the fundamental constants of astronomy
https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items/cihm_16774/cihm_16774.pdf
Robertson is free to look at the places where Newcomb published the difference between observation and pure Newtonian computation of the precession of the planets’ perihelion.
**
There are many contemporary documents showing the need to extend Newton’s motion laws in order to obtain correct precession results.
*
One of the most interesting approaches among them is
Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury in Terms of a Velocity-Dependent Correction to Newtons Law of Gravitation
Randy Wayne
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA (2015)
http://labs.plantbio.cornell.edu/wayne/pdfs/ARP%20Perihelion%20of%20Mercury.pdf
Abstract
” The first success of Einsteins General Theory of Relativity was to account for the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury. This solution required time and space to be ‘robbed of the last trace of objective reality’.
Here I show that it is possible to interpret Einsteins relativistic correction for describing the precession of the perihelion of Mercury in terms of a gravitational force obeying Newton’s law of gravitation corrected with a tangential-velocity-dependent term and operating through Euclidean space and Newtonian time. ”
*
Notabene: this was apparently not Wayne’s first successful enhancement of Newton’s framework to get it on par with Einstein’s, see page 186:
” I have previously shown that by taking the mechanical angular momentum and mechanical energy of the photon into consideration, it is possible to describe and explain the deflection of starlight and the gravitational redshift, which are typically explained by the General Theory of Relativity, in terms of Euclidean space and Newtonian time [11].
I have also shown that the relativity of simultaneity, the optics of moving bodies, the reason that moving bodies cannot exceed the speed of light, and the inertia of energy can be described and explained in terms of the second order Doppler effect taking place in Euclidean space and Newtonian time [12-15]. ”
*
Coming back to the planets’ perihelion precession differences, I show the comparison between Wayne’s Newtonian enhancements and a computation 100% based on Einstein’s work:
Perihelion Precession in the Solar System
Sara Kanzi and Hamed Ghasemian (2016)
http://ijmcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Paper61125-1130.pdf
*
1. Wayne (Newton + tangential velocity)
Mercury: 42.9447 (arcseconds/century)
Venus: 8.6656
Earth: 3.8396
Mars: 1.3524
Jupiter: 0.0623
2. Kanzi/Ghasemian (GR’s spacetime)
Mercury: 42.980 (arcseconds/century)
Venus: 8.6247
Earth: 3.8374
Mars: 1.3504
Jupiter: 0.0623
—
Saturn: 0.0136
Uranus: 0.0024
Neptune: 0.0008
*
On the one hand, anyone having problems with the unification of space and time can say:
“Hooray! We don’t need Einstein!”
On the other hand, the amazing similarity between (1) Wayne’s enhancement of Newton and (2) Einstein’s work shows that the so often denigrated Einstein can’t have been wrong.
**
The final question remains for me whether Randy Wayne’s work also explains Einstein’s Strong Equivalence Principle, which has been successfully proven recently by a Lunar Laser Ranging based comparison of Earth’s and Moon’s free fall toward our Sun.
“Apparently, Robertson this blogs most arrogant ignoramus . . . ”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
If you had balls between the legs, you would actually tell that to Robertson, and… yourself.
Binny,
Oh dear! Has your testicular obsession gone to your head? You best reach down and check that your testicles haven’t followed your obsession, and wound up on your chin.
Maybe I’m transsexual, or gender reassigned, and find your remarks transphobic. Are you sexist, or homophobic, perhaps? Do feel like dressing up as the Nazi Obersturmbannfuhrer for whom you have previously expressed your admiration?
You are definitely strange – obsessed with canines, their faeces, testicles, and so on.
I’ll point out just a few testicle free people who achieved a bit. Madame Curie, Ada Lovelace, Hatshepsut, Catherine the Great, the Empress Maria Theresa, Elizabeth the first, Queen Victoria, and many more.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
Your ‘please stop tr0lling’ obsession is the origin of all my replies, as you have nothing else to say.
Stop your nonsense, and I’ll stop replying it.
“Stop your nonsense, and Ill stop replying it.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
“Urbain Le Verrier and Simon Newcomb both computed Mercurys perihelion precession exactly according to Newtons laws, and discovered discrepancies between their computations and century-long observations.”
Using an infinite speed of gravity. The speed of light/gravity is not taken into account. That produces a different distance that a slight different and extra orbital torque that accounts for differences observed.
…that a slight different…
Le Verrier and Newcomb OF COURSE were ‘using an infinite speed of gravity’: their computations were 100% based on Newton.
*
What’s your point, Blindsley H00d?
You write stuff as if you didn’t read even one word of Wayne’s and Kanzi’s papers.
“You write stuff as if you didnt read even one word of Waynes and Kanzis papers.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
“Whats your point”
That different figures produce different results. In line with actual predictions.
” That different figures produce different results. In line with actual predictions. ”
Again you formulate general, non-binding sentences, carefully avoiding being clear and unambiguous, and therefore – only apparently – never seem to be wrong.
*
Which ‘different figures’ resp. ‘different results’ are you talking about?
Which ‘actual predictions’ do you refer to?
Many words, zero content.
What’s your point, Blindsley H00d?
“The speed of light/gravity is not taken into account. That produces a different distance that a slight different and extra orbital torque that accounts for differences observed.”
Evidence, RLH?
C’mon, you are not claiming you know how to do this calculation, are you?
“Whats your point”
That different calculations must produce different results.
“Evidence”
“Le Verrier and Newcomb OF COURSE were ‘using an infinite speed of gravity’: their computations were 100% based on Newton.”
See above.
If r is the radial velocity then the apparent distance (which is 1/d^2 in gravity value according to both Newton and Einstein) is sqrt(c^2 – r^2) by Pythagorean triangles.
The presumption here is that the precession of the Mercury orbit is known. We have calculations from various people but no absolute proof that any of them are correct.
About the Einstein method…from Randy Wayne’s link…
http://labs.plantbio.cornell.edu/wayne/pdfs/ARP%20Perihelion%20of%20Mercury.pdf
“Einsteins kinematic approach is not intuitive, and it is difficult to understand, especially when the constant (A) of the energy conservation law has dimensions of space squared over time squared and the constant of the angular momentum conservation law (B) has dimensions of space. Mutatis mutandis, Einsteins correction can be presented as an equation of motion using the familiar Hamiltonian”.
A point Einstein made about the extension of quantum theory by Bohr, into a sci-fi world, was that he was not comfortable with ‘action at a distance’. In other words, theories that could not be measured in physics were not to his liking. Then he did a 180 and released his nonsense about relativity which is based on space and time, neither of which can be measured because neither exists in the context he offers them.
In essence, Einstein has replace the real, physical world by thought-experiments.
> no absolute proof
Step 1 – Pure Denial
“Step 1 Pure Denial”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Robertson
You are even dumber than is possible to explain.
“You are even dumber than is possible to explain.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
A bit of fun based on the theory of general relativity –
“According to the general theory of relativity, the Sun does orbit the Earth. And the Earth orbits the Sun. And they both orbit together around a place in between. And both the Sun and the Earth are orbiting the Moon.”
Written by one of the founders of Berkeley Earth, of BEST fame, so should be acceptable to even fanatical GHE cultists.
Of course, neither Einstein nor Dr Muller have described, or would be able to describe the mythical GHE, so diversions about the Earth, Moon, Sun, relativity special or general, are just attempts to avoid facing reality. No GHE.
tim f…”* The moon ROTATES ON ITS AXIS with constant angular speed”.
***
I am still awaiting an explanation of how it does that while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
I have offered an analogy of such motion where a race car is orbiting an oval track. It keeps the same side pointed to the track centre but it cannot rotate on an internal axis without spinning out.
Both cases are examples of curvilinear motion without local rotation.
Furthermore, how can the Moon rotate on a local axis when tangential vectors representing the motion of the near face, the far side, and the COG are moving in parallel at all times? Same for the car, unless it starts spinning out.
“a race car is orbiting an oval track”
The outer wheel travels further/faster than the inner one. Does that not cause a rotation of the car around its axis?
RLH,
A propeller blade tip travels further/faster than its root. Does that mean the blade is rotating about its axis?
The peak of Mount Everest travels further/faster than its base. Does that mean that Mt Everest is rotating about its axis?
The far side of the Moon travels further/faster than its near side. Does that mean the Moon is rotating about its axis?
Questions, questions. Pointless and irrelevant, but they take the focus away from the impossibility of describing the mythical GHE.
“Does that mean the blade is rotating about its axis?”
Yes. Around its center as any observer will agree.
“Does that mean that Mt Everest is rotating about its axis?”
Mt Everest is just a lump on the face of the Earth so, yes it rotates about the center of the Earth.
…and not on its own internal axis. Which is, of course, the point. RLH can understand point 1), when pressed.
There is no axis to Mt Everest as I noted.
Yes, agreement is good. Thank you.
> The outer wheel travels further/faster than the inner one. Does that not cause a rotation of the car around its axis?
Crickets.
Do you mean those tangential vectors that are continually changing direction, and hence themselves rotating?
“I am still awaiting an explanation of how it does that while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.”
It doesnt keep quite the same face to Earth. There is libration. You must be aware of this, Gordon?
Which is of course a consequence of the fact that the rotation of the moon about its axis is not in the same plane as its rotation about the earth.
Libration of the moon happens for very much the same reason as a geo-synchronous orbit (with non-zero inclination to the equator) has a ground-track in the shape of a figure-8.
…of course, conceding that the moon rotates about the Earth necessarily means that it is not rotating about its own internal axis (an axis passing through the CoM of the moon).
… as observed from Earth.
Why is Graham D. Warner replying to a subthread Nate started?
I was responding to Antonin, Little Willy. There used to be more reply options per thread.
Why does Graham D. Warner feel the need to respond to Antonin’s comment that was in response to Nate’s comment?
“Which is of course” might have given him the pragmatic prompt that he might be lacking the information to contribute anything meaningful to the exchange.
Not that he would have would he be reading Nate’s comments, as his recent exchange with Nate has shown.
What I said to Antonin was correct, which is all that matters.
DREMT
“conceding that the moon rotates about the Earth necessarily means that it is not rotating about its own internal axis”
Do explain.
In doing so, state precisely what your assumptions are in making that statement.
Just some facts about rotation, Antonin. Those that get it, get it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1662444
Libration is a product of an elliptical orbit, there can be no libration in a circular orbit. Ergo, libration is a view angle issue.
What Graham D. Warner said to AQ has nothing to do whatsoever with what Nate and AQ were discussing.
Besides being false, of course: the Moon rotates around the Earth whilst spinning on its own axis.
"…the Moon rotates around the Earth whilst spinning on its own axis."
False, Little Willy.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
Your pure denial was at 1:03 PM, Little Willy.
“I have offered an analogy of such motion where a race car is orbiting an oval track. ”
But that is not a good analogy for “orbit”. Tires keep the car aligned with the direction of travel. Gravity does not. And that analogy for “orbit without spin” gives the wrong libration. (Which has been pointed out MANY times!)
If a theory doesn’t agree with observations (ie libration) then it must be scrapped for a better theory.
The better model would be a heavy ball on a frictionless pole mounted on a truck. When the truck is parked, “not rotating” means the same side of the ball always faces north. When the truck is driving around the track, “not rotating” STILL means the same side of the ball always faces north.
When the truck is parked, “rotating once per minute” means the ball changes orientation with respect to the ground smoothly over the course of a minute. When the truck is driving around the track once per minute, “rotating once per minute” STILL means the ball changes orientation with respect to the ground smoothly over the course of a minute.
The truck is also changing orientation with respect to the ground over the course of a minute (but at varying rates as the track curves differently and/or the truck drives different speeds). This keeps the face side APPROXIMATELY toward the center — and this DOES give the correct libration.
Folkerts doesn’t understand ANY of this.
He’s got something rotating around his “frictionless axle”, claiming it is not rotating.
He can’t understand any of this.
gbaikie, we haven’t had your daily solar report for a few days.
Please don’t leave us in suspense.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
It is sad how a certain person can always answer within about 5 minutes even though there have been no posts here for hours. What a “life” they must lead.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
A bit of ‘sunspotting’ might help…
2024 04 10 2024.275 55 7.4 24 28
2024 04 11 2024.277 89 9.9 22 24
2024 04 12 2024.280 80 7.1 30 35
2024 04 13 2024.283 119 10.7 31 39
2024 04 14 2024.286 140 13.2 27 34
2024 04 15 2024.288 163 15.2 28 33
2024 04 16 2024.291 179 13.3 20 26
2024 04 17 2024.294 208 23.6 25 29
2024 04 18 2024.296 214 24.6 20 24
Yes I’ve done that. I was just making sure that the person who claimed last year that November and the months following would average around 50 would not let this pass.
In my native tongue we say
” La parole est d’argent mais le silence est d’or. ”
gbaikie just follows this rule… when appropriated.
binny…” La parole est dargent mais le silence est dor”
That’s why I never liked French.
Essentially, the translation is ‘Talk is silver, but silence is gold’. But they convolute gold = or, by adding a d’ as in d’or. D’ comes from de, which means ‘of’. So they are saying silence is of gold. At least in English we can say Silence is golden.
It seems the Germans have words for gold and golden but Binny lives in Germany and speaks French. Go figure.
Robertson the dumbie tries to teach us about the French language:
” So they are saying silence is of gold. At least in English we can say Silence is golden. ”
Is it possible to be more stoopid?
Robertson isn’t even able to see that his allegedly ‘intelligent’ remark is valid for… gold only; if the word ‘silvern’ would exist, the exact English translation for my sentence above would be:
” Speech is silvern, but silence is golden. ”
In German, ‘silbern’ exists as the complement to ‘golden’ but both aren’t used here:
” Reden is Silber, Schweigen ist Gold. ”
*
Thus, English, German, Dutch etc etc lack in this case the complementary expressiveness offered by French.
*
Plus bête que Robertson, tu meurs fissa.
Solar wind
speed: 354.5 km/sec
density: 4.08 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 18 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 199
https://www.spaceweather.com/
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 217 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.32×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.6% Low
12 numbered sunspots. No sunspot appears to coming from farside, 1 is leaving to farside, and biggest spot will take couple days to leave.
What is the significance of a spot being numbered?
–What is the significance of a spot being numbered?–
I believe, it’s then counted.
Or when I see spots which aren’t numbered, and I assume it’s not counted.
And I assume, if see number, but don’t see a spot, I also assume it’s counted.
Anyways there are rules, and the rules are kept, because one comparing now, to past. I don’t know these rules, I just accept, however, they count it.
And I have “problems” with https://www.spaceweather.com/ but I keep it, because it’s like the hitcher-guide [to the Galaxy].
“What is the significance of a spot being numbered?.
What is the significance of your comment?
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
12 numbered sunspots, yet the count is 199?
Doesn’t look like the motivation to me.
Does spaceweather have an archive of sunspot counts from past cycles?
Anyway … good to see you just beat out the humourless tr011, and good that you saw “significance in my comment”.
Edit: Before posting I noticed that the numbering refers to sunspot REGIONS, not spots. I suggest you call them that in future. Today there are 14 sunspot regions, containing a total of more than 100 spots.
“Does spaceweather have an archive of sunspot counts from past cycles?”
??: https://www.spaceweather.com/
?
Back to Jan 2001:
https://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=19&month=04&year=2001
“12 numbered sunspots, yet the count is 199?
Doesnt look like the motivation to me.”
Right now sunspot number is Sunspot number: 247
And their picture of sun hasn’t changed, still 12 numbered spot.
But it will change in about 12 hours or so, and “somehow” there will be more numbered spot.
It could be spots I didn’t see, are actually coming from farside.
And/or a lot spots grew on nearside.
I tend to guess, a lot numbered spots grew on nearside.
If had to guess, 3643 and/or 3645 grew into monster spots.
In hours, the picture will/should indicate what happened.
Solar wind
speed: 378.6 km/sec
density: 12.95 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 19 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 247
“A southern sunspot complex centered on AR3645 is crackling with M-class solar flares and may be poised to unleash an X-flare. ”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 227 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.32×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.6% Low
14 numbered spots. No spot coming from farside. 3633 and 3634 numbers are still on nearside {the spots aren’t visible} and both will gone within a day. And “complex centered on AR3645” is a more active area.
Well one could say, with 5 numbered spot, or one could say about a dozen small to moderate sized spots “near it”, which called 5 numbered spots.
And any of them might grow into a large spot, soon.
Or fade.
Oh also there couple of spots which are around middle of nearside which are not numbered yet. Or they grew, and could be numbered later [if they don’t disappear, and/or they might grow bigger.]
Looks like I have to repeat myself. The numbered “spots” are regions. They are CLUSTERS of spot. Whenever you see a big smudge that is a massive cluster of smaller spots.
“Looks like I have to repeat myself.”
One thing about numbered spots, is they mark when sunspot is first seen. So higher spot number are coming from farside, or they are forming on nearside and/or disappearing while on nearside {numbered spots missing in sequence of numbered spots].
Anyhow despite hard to guess, the highest numbered spots are fading and possibly growing [3648 and 3646 fading 3647 and 3645 maybe growing which are nearer middle, whereas 3648 and 3646 are closest from entering from farside.
And have spot not numbered past middle which will or probably will be a higher number of 3649 or maybe 3650.
In terms of excuses.
yesterday worked about 12+ hours.
And the Firebox browser seemed to want me enter a password to post- it’s no doing it, now.
So about 2/3rd way thru April. What will spot number be for April?
Solar wind
speed: 522.2 km/sec
density: 2.20 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 20 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 243
“A southern sunspot complex centered on AR3645 is crackling with M-class solar flares and may be poised to unleash an X-flare.”
And getting bigger.
And not numbered, did become 3649 and other one was numbered 3650 [which grew a lot]. And numbered spot 3648, disappeared.
A spot is leaving and no spot coming to farside.
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 213 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.62×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.6% Low
And there are 14 numbered spots.
April number could be around 100
https://climateaudit.org/2024/04/18/twisted-tree-heartrot-hill-revisited/
“Recently, while re-examining PAGES2K, the current paleoclimate darling, I noticed that PAGES2K(2019) reverted to a variation of the Twisted Tree Heartrot Hill (Yukon) [TTHH] tree ring chronology that we had already criticized in 2003 as being obsolete when used by Mann et al 1998. PAGES2K was supposed to be an improvement on Mann et al 1998 data, but, in many ways, its even worse. So its It was very strange to observe the 2019 re-cycling of a TTHH version, previously criticized in 2003 as being already obsolete in 1998”
Blindsley H00d
Instead of childishly praising McIntyre’s criticism of about 0.01% of the PAGES2K study results, how about focusing on TricksZone’s most recent manipulation of the last 2,000 years, ridiculously trying to extend a tiny part of Russia’s Arctic up to the entire Northern Hemisphere?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/15/comprehensive-russian-temperature-reconstruction-shows-warmer-temperatures-1000-years-ago/
Note: Like me, you will have to translate a lot of Russian before you understand what I mean.
That Russian reconstruction mirrors the raw U.S. temperature record. The parallel between higher average temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s compared to 2020 certainly gives one pause for thought. Could it be mere coincidence?
*2000* not 2020.
Hogle
Are you really THAT dumb?
I’m telling here about a RECONSTRUCTION back to 0 AD, and what do you boast?
” That Russian reconstruction mirrors the raw U.S. temperature record. ”
How ignorant is one allowed to be?
You behave like Robertson and his stoopid 1500 NOAA stations.
Look at the last part of the graph with much higher early-20th century temperatures than 2000.
And yes. No hockey stick, just cycles.
” Look at the last part of the graph with much higher early-20th century temperatures than 2000. ”
Apparently, Hogle doesn’t understand that when the focus is on 0-AD, reducing the discussion to the 20th century makes no sense at all.
NO HOCKEY STICK, JUST CYCLES.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
A propos, Hogle
Somewhere upthread, you brazenly wrote
” ” The CRN anomalies are calculated from the same baseline as the old network (*) is. ”
Are you able to technically develop what you mean here?
Which ‘baseline’ are you talking about?
*
(*) For those who can’t know what Hogle means: the old network is here ‘USHCN’.
The CRN and the nClimDiv anomalies are based on 1981-2010 normals from the same CO-OP data.
1. ” The CRN and the nClimDiv anomalies are based on 1981-2010 normals… ”
Your exact source, please?
2. ” … from the same CO-OP data. ”
What’s ‘CO-OP’ data? The Globe is a bit more than US…
1991-2020 actually.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/background
“𝘚𝘰 𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘋𝘪𝘷 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜.𝘚. 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘕𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 (𝘜𝘚𝘊𝘙𝘕) 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝟑𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟏𝟗𝟗𝟏 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤. 𝘋𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘋𝘪𝘷 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 1895 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘴𝘰 𝘢 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 30-𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢. 𝘜𝘚𝘊𝘙𝘕 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘯𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘺 𝘊𝘖𝘖𝘗 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘚𝘊𝘙𝘕 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘊𝘖𝘖𝘗 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭 1991-2020 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 (𝘚𝘶𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯, 2005). 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 0.25 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 0.25 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 48 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘢 𝘸𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘜.𝘚. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘭𝘺 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘛𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘹 (𝘕𝘛𝘐) 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘋𝘪𝘷 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘜𝘚𝘊𝘙𝘕. 𝘍𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦 1 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘋𝘪𝘷 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘜𝘚𝘊𝘙𝘕 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘹𝘪𝘮𝘶𝘮, 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘶𝘮 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦. 𝘚𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩-𝘵𝘰-𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩, 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨.”
The moon question is a problem of perception and a study in the importance of taking the correct frame of reference. It is tempting to simply say that since the same area always faces earth that it is not rotating or spinning. It seems like the natural way of things for objects that orbit the earth, but that is not correct.
The tetherball analogy is wrong because the tether is a restraint. The moon has no such restraint. The moon is a free body, so if it does rotate it can only rotate about its own center of mass. That is the key issue. Since there is no other input, the rate of rotation remains constant throughout the path of the elliptical orbit.
The fact that the rotation exactly matches the orbit to reveal only one face toward earth is a false clue. It is true that the inner face always follows a shorter orbital path than the outer face, but that is once again a false clue. The answer to that is, that the moon also has phases, such that all of the major portions of the moon see sunlight at some time. It is currently in a waxing gibbous phase. Therefore, it does rotate, and as a free body, it must also spin about its own center of gravity. Some of my previous comments were not correctly stated in that respect.
The other interesting issue is whether there are vectors involved. Some have incorrectly stated that the curved orbital motion eliminates the possibility of vectors. That is just crazy. The moon does have a momentum vector and it is linear as all vectors are. It also has a centripetal force vector due the acceleration of gravity at that distance from the earth. The direction of the gravitational vector is always toward the center of mass of the earth. It is the constantly changing direction of that vector as the moon moves that accounts for the curved path of the orbit.
Tim S
Thanks for this useful clarification.
“Therefore, it does rotate, and as a free body, it must also spin about its own center of gravity”.
Well, if you’re saying you still think the moon rotates about the Earth, and rotates on its own internal axis, you’re definitely wrong, Tim.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
An object that is rotating about an axis in the centre of the “Earth circle”, in the GIF I just linked to, moves like the “moon on the left” (MOTL), without rotating on its own internal axis. So, if the object was rotating about both axes, as you seem to be suggesting, it would no longer be moving like the MOTL.
… as observed from Earth. Tim S is “suggesting” as if observing from an inertial frame e.g. from the sun’s position.
If the object were rotating about both axes, it would no longer be moving like the MOTL. Location of observation makes absolutely no difference to that fact, since movement like the MOTL is movement like the MOTL, wherever you observe it from.
No, you’ve still got that wrong DREMT 1:00am, as usual. Viewed from the inner circle, only one face of the MOTL is observed so it’s seen rotating on R only. Viewed from the picture frame, all sides of the MOTL are observed showing the rotation about two axes: r & R. DREMT exhibits being uninformed in Madhavi’s field of rigid body kinematics & that all motion is relative.
Ball4 needs to be reminded, again, that movement like the MOTL is movement like the MOTL, wherever you observe it from. You can identify that an object is moving like the MOTL either from "the inner circle" (Ball4 term) or from "the picture frame" (Ball4 term). Ball4 just lacks the intelligence or open-mindedness to understand.
DREMT somehow leaves out “movement like the MOTL” (or the MOTR) can be seen rotating on its r or not rotating on its r depending on location of observer. This is typical since DREMT is still learning about Madhavi’s field of rigid body kinematics.
Ball4 is talking about something subtly different to what I’m talking about. He simply cannot understand what I’m saying, because he lacks the intelligence, or open-mindedness, to do so.
Some of what DREMT writes is simply wrong according to Madhavi, one has to consult Madhavi (or another author in the field of rigid body kinematics) to discover when DREMT is correct or not. All motion is relative in which there is nothing subtle.
Ball4 is talking about whether the moon in the MOTL GIF is spinning, or not spinning, depending on location of observer.
Whereas, what I was doing, was stating the fact that if an object were rotating about both axes (external and internal), it would no longer be moving like the MOTL. I then added that location of observation makes absolutely no difference to that fact, since movement like the MOTL is movement like the MOTL, wherever you observe it from.
Ball4 can’t even understand the difference in what we’re saying!
> If the object were rotating about both axes, it would no longer be moving like the MOTL.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
Yep – correct stuff.
[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
"Isaac" can say what he likes. The language is so archaic, who knows if he’s actually saying that he thinks the moon is rotating about the Earth (rather than translating about the Earth)?
Return to Step 1 – Pure Denial.
It’s really not hard to imagine that even if the time it took for the Moon to orbit Earth was the same as a (synodic) day on the Moon, a month and a day could be two different things.
There’s nothing much Graham D. Warner can do about that!
If you say so, Little Willy.
Astute readers might also recall that Flop’s trick has been debunked years ago:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220418215141/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-806537
That is a different point altogether.
Graham D. Warner waves his arms furiously.
Well, it was a different point altogether. That was from a discussion about elliptical orbits. Not a discussion about an object rotating around two different axes (one external and one internal). What is wrong with you people?
Graham D. Warner pretends that Flop’s trick does not falter as soon as we observe that a rotation is an isometry.
His gaslighting never ends.
I am just not going to follow your attempted change of topic, Little Willy.
Flop’s trick is to try to show that it’s possible to represent a non-circular ellipse as a pure rotation. Flop thus breaks basic affine geometry. From there one can conclude that Flop hasn’t proved much.
Graham D. Warner will do as he pleases, as is his wont.
Little Willy confirms he is off topic, again.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
His claim that “If the object were rotating about both axes, it would no longer be moving like the MOTL” has been refuted a thousand times.
Each of his arguments for it too!
That’s not correct, Little Willy, but you get to believe whatever you want.
Tim S, we’re seen years of pointless rambling by those afraid to speak out against the mistakes of institutionalized “science”. Why add to that nonsense?
The ball-on-a-string, chalk circle, race car, or wooden horse on a merry-go-round, ALL exhibit “orbiting without spin”. Just as Moon does.
If you have no viable model of “orbting without spin”, then you’re got NOTHING. Cult beliefs ain’t science.
Clint R, I cannot tell if you really are confused, or trying to act like a Gordon Robertson wannabe. At least Gordon is creative, and many of his wrong statements show an underlying understand intended, I think, to catch people who might be persuaded. I think there are other people who frequent these comments who are doing just that.
Whoops! That would be an underlying “understanding”. There is another group who seem to rely mostly on quotes from various sources including wikipedia. Gordon is creative, and his writing is his own version of things intermixed with quotes taken out of context. He is creatively wrong, not just plain wrong.
“So, if the object was rotating about both axes, as you seem to be suggesting, it would no longer be moving like the MOTL.”
One way it could move, if it were rotating about both axes, is like the “moon on the right” (MOTR). If it were rotating about the axis in the centre of the “Earth circle” in one direction whilst simultaneously rotating on its own internal axis in the other direction, at a rate of once per orbit, it would move as per the MOTR.
Tim S, if you have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”, then you’ve got NOTHING. Cult beliefs ain’t science
You say that I “got” nothing. What I have is high intelligence, the benefit of an exceptional education, real world experience, and professional writing skills. I wrote the above comment in about 20 minutes or so, with minimal editing. That included a few minutes to look up the current moon phase. I also freely admitted that I have made incorrect statements in some of my previous posts on the topic.
If you have “high intelligence” Tim S, then why all the rambling nonsense to deny reality?
Smart people accept reality, then don’t deny it.
Tim S is ignoring me. Strange, since he seemed to understand rotation before, stating that if the moon was rotating, it would have to be about an axis located within the Earth itself. Now he has gone back on himself, completely, apparently saying that the moon is rotating about two axes, which is objectively false.
… as viewed from Earth.
As viewed from Earth, or from outside the orbit, Ball4.
Only inertially DREMT 9:38 am, got anything new? All motion is relative.
Saying that the moon is rotating about two axes is objectively false, Ball4. Regardless of location of observation.
> Saying that the moon is rotating about two axes is objectively false
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
Saying stuff that has been proven time and again through a variety of different means, as you know.
Graham D. Warner’s own argument based on Holy Madhavi refutes his claim that the Moon can’t rotate about two axes.
False, Little Willy…but funny.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
Since you’ve made no coherent argument, there’s nothing for me to deny.
Since Graham D. Warner simply gestured to the infinite, to remind him that his own argument on Holy Madhavi contradicted his actual argument is more than enough.
He sure can try to gaslight in response, which he does.
Since you haven’t said what argument involving Madhavi you’re referring to, how can I possibly know what you’re talking about?
All I can say is that my own interpretation of Madhavi, coupled with the arguments surrounding the online transmographer, Desmos, and the mathematical arguments from Ftop_t all support the idea that rotation about two axes (one internal and one external) cannot possibly result in movement as per the MOTL.
I’m happy that’s correct, and always will be, as long as I live.
Since Graham D. Warner simply asserted that his claim has “proven time and again,” there’s nothing much to respond.
Meanwhile, a few centuries ago:
[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1662595
“Isaac” refers to Isaac Newton, it should go without saying.
“Graham D. Warner” refers this guy.
OK, Little Willy.
DREMPTY,
Newton wrote that the Moon rotates on its own internal axis.
OK, bob.
bob received all the explanation he needed, but still wants more spoon-feeding.
tim s…”It is true that the inner face always follows a shorter orbital path than the outer face, but that is once again a false clue.
duh!!?
You are agreeing that the inner face follows a curved path that is always inside the outer curved path. We call such curves concentric. You might also have noticed that the lunar COG is in an intermediate curved path. So, are all points on the Moon in between the inner and outer concentric path.
Ergo, at each instant in the orbit, all points on the Moon are moving in parallel. That rules out any rotation about the COG.
Replace those points with tangential velocity vectors and what do you have? Three vectors moving in parallel to each other at all times. How can three vectors always moving in parallel rotate about the COG?
If you do the same with a car running on a track, you have exactly the same thing. The question that seems to confuse spinners is whether that car is also rotating about its COG, which is impossible unless it spins out, where the tires lose traction.
That’s why the ball on a string is totally pertinent. The ball’s motion is similar to the Moon’s with the exception that it requires a string to hold it in orbit. So if a ball constrained by a string so it cannot rotate cannot rotate about a local axis, why should the Moon be any different?
The string only constrains the ball when the string is motionless.
If you are spinning the string, then the ball attached to the string must also be spinning.
Just a quick annihilation of bobdroege’s "thickument" (like an argument, only thicker).
The movement of a ball on a string could be described as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
So, kinematics doesn’t settle whether the ball itself is spinning, or not. Moving beyond that, then, a quick look at the mechanics behind the motion reveal that the ball is being swung about a central axis that is external to the ball itself. So, we know that "rotation about an external axis" is chosen for us as the "base motion" for the ball on a string, and we have no choice but to go with option a).
Issue of the ball on a string eternally settled.
… as viewed by the twirler of the ball on string.
…or from outside the ball’s "orbit".
> kinematics doesn’t settle
Graham D. Warner has a knack for pure denial.
Is there anything that, according to Moon Dragon cranks, would “settle” the issue?
DREMT gets it wrong yet again 9:39 am, all sides of the ball are seen when outside the ball’s “orbit” so it is objectively rotating on R and spinning on r from there.
Willard, DREMT supplied Madhavi’s treatise on rigid body kinematics which correctly settles the issues except for DREMT being wrong according to Prof. Madhavi in many comments.
"DREMT gets it wrong yet again 9:39 am, all sides of the ball are seen when outside the ball’s “orbit” so it is objectively rotating on R and spinning on r from there."
Incorrect. Objectively, the ball on a string is not rotating about two different axes, no matter the location of observation.
Consulting Madhavi’s writing, and even just the wiki motion of MOTL, MOTR shows DREMT 10:29 am is wrong.
The ball on string is inertially rotating on its own axis (as is the MOTL) no matter where the observation is made once the frame of reference motion is accounted. All motion is relative.
Ball4 is certainly not to be trusted in interpreting most texts, and Madhavi is no different. According to Ball4, translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) could be either movement like the MOTL or the MOTR, dependent on location of observer! No, Ball4, it is movement like the MOTR. If you had read Madhavi correctly, you would be aware of that fact.
If according to Moon Dragon cranks NOTHING would “settle” the issue, then so much the worse for Graham D. Warner pet’s ringtone.
…but I said what settled the issue of the ball on a string, Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner, who has no physics bone in his body, gaslights again.
The issue is if the Moon spins, and has nothing to do with Moon Dragon cranks’ pet toy model.
I’m commenting in this particular sub-thread about the ball on a string, and nothing more. The issue can indeed be resolved. You partially quoted me at 10:11 AM and what you wrote suggested I was saying that the issue of the ball on a string could not be resolved. Yet, if you had just read on a little further, you would have seen that I claimed the issue could be resolved. Typical Little Willy, failing to read or write correctly. Not an English language bone in his body.
Bob’s claim was “If you are spinning the string, then the ball attached to the string must also be spinning.”
Graham D. Warner’s retort that kinematics does not settle the issue does not address it.
Like, not at all.
The string is rotating about a central axis, thus the ball that is attached to it is also rotating about a central axis (external to the ball itself).
Pretty simple.
And Graham D. Warner relies on kinematics to settle the issue.
Why are Moon Dragon cranks always punching their own thickarguments like that?
No, it’s not kinematics, Little Willy. Let’s improve you…
The movement of a ball on a string could be described as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Those are the two options, from kinematics. So, kinematics doesn’t settle whether the ball itself is spinning, or not. Moving beyond that, then, a quick look at the mechanics behind the motion reveal that the ball is being swung about a central axis that is external to the ball itself. So, we know that "rotation about an external axis" is chosen for us as the "base motion" for the ball on a string, and we have no choice but to go with option a).
Issue of the ball on a string eternally settled.
“The string is rotating about a central axis thus the ball that is attached to it is also rotating about a central axis” is indeed kinematics.
Holy Madhavi is replete with such examples.
Graham D. Warner won’t get to classical mechanics simply by saying the word “attached”!
Well, I prefer my 9:10 AM argument, which is why I repeated it, but since you claimed that was not rebutting bobdroege’s thickument, I thought I would keep it at his level with my 1:11 PM.
Either way, bob’s wrong.
It should go without saying that Graham D. Warner won’t get any classical mechanics out of a mere “a quick look at the mechanics”!
OK, Little Willy.
After all, classical mechanics involve things such as torque, angular momentum, rotational velocity, etc.
Imagine cranks who try to keep opining on the Moon spin without using these concepts!
As Tim remarked, all those things would be the same for his toy horse rigidly attached to the turntable vs. his toy horse on the XY plotter, Little Willy. Both would move like the MOTL. However, the XY plotter horse is being spun by an electric motor. It is objectively being translated in a circle by the plotter, whilst being spun by the motor. Description b) is chosen for us. Whereas the turntable is rotating the toy horse about an axis in the centre of the turntable. It is physically unable to spin. Description a) is chosen for us.
The mechanics behind the motions matter.
As Tim remarked:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1662171
Graham D. Warner should pay attention to the concepts involved.
Off topic to the ball on a string, Little Willy (whereas Tim’s toy horse examples really helped make the point about the BoS extra clear).
Graham D. Warner soldiers on, gaslighting along the way.
No gaslighting, Little Willy. There never is.
Orbits are not rotations.
That should help settle the debate.
The only axis the Moon rotates around is internal.
The orbit does have an axis, but it is not an axis of rotation.
It’s an orbital axis without a constant radius.
bobdroege really sticks it to Tim S, Antonin Qwerty, and Little Willy, who have all argued that the moon can be said to be rotating about two axes, one external and one internal.
FUrthermore, the ball on a string is not rotating around an external axis because you have to move your hand back and forth to produce the force necessary to make the ball revolve around your hand.
Oh, that’s a new one. Any logic to what you’re saying, bob, or is it just another thickument you’ve pulled out of your behind?
> Orbits are not rotations.
Bob sticks it to Moon Dragon cranks and their silly balls on g-string.
Little Willy is never bothered when bob directly contradicts him. Mind you, I guess bob isn’t really one to take seriously.
DREMPTY,
“Oh, thats a new one. Any logic to what youre saying, bob, or is it just another thickument youve pulled out of your behind?”
That’s not even an argument against what I said.
So as usual, you got nothing.
bob, what you said wasn’t an argument in the first place.
DREMPTY,
Well then, you called it a thickument.
Which you also did not address.
Like all my arguments or thickuments that I post and you do not address.
You present no actual logic to be disputed, bob. You just sort of "say stuff", as Little Willy would put it. Then you get mad if people don’t take you seriously, and give some sort of detailed rebuttal to your nonsense!
Well DREMPTY,
Try making a video of you revolving a ball on a string around without moving you hand back and forth to make it revolve.
You skip the part where you connect the hand moving back and forth to any sort of proof that the ball cannot be rotating about an external axis. There is just no explanation given.
DREMPTY,
It’s obvious that it is not a rotation because the hand moving back and forth produces an elliptical path, which is not circular, so not a rotation,
It is also obvious that formal proofs are beyond you.
But here we go again.
The side of the ball opposite the string moves farther than the side where the string is attached, so it is moving with greater speed. Since these two points are moving with a different speed, they must be moving apart, but since they are not, the ball must be rotating on its axis to keep the ball from coming apart.
"It’s obvious that it is not a rotation because the hand moving back and forth produces an elliptical path, which is not circular, so not a rotation"
It just means the ball is swinging about an axis that is moving back and forth. It’s not like the string is changing length.
"The side of the ball opposite the string moves farther than the side where the string is attached, so it is moving with greater speed. Since these two points are moving with a different speed, they must be moving apart, but since they are not, the ball must be rotating on its axis to keep the ball from coming apart."
…the ball must be rotating about some axis to keep the ball from coming apart.
DREMPTY,
Yes, and that axis has to be internal to the ball, because the circumference of the ball is exactly enough to keep the ball from coming apart as the ball rotates on that internal axis.
No, the axis does not need to be internal to the ball. The ball will change its orientation as necessary simply by rotating around the central axis, external to the ball itself.
DREMPTY,
Damn, you almost got it.
“No, the axis does not need to be internal to the ball.”
THat’s the only one that will do, by providing the exact difference in paths for the outside and inside of the ball.
“The ball will change its orientation as necessary simply by rotating around the central axis, external to the ball itself.”
I can change that to:
The ball will rotate on its axis as necessary simply by rotating around the internal axis.
Revolution about an external axis does not provide the exact travel path necessary to keep the ball from falling apart.
Lol…does bob still think that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement as per the MOTR!?
DREMPTY,
Yes and I also believe in Unicorns with a gold horn, six legs, and a thagomizer.
There are no such celestial objects that are rotating around an external axis while not rotating on an internal axis.
None, nada, zilch.
Apparently, you believe in such fantastical beasts.
“Yes”
Well, no wonder you’re so confused, still! Sorry, bob, discussion over. Can’t talk to people that are so completely ineducable.
All well and good DREMPTY,
You can’t follow my proof that the Moon spins on an internal axis, so you can do nothing but claim that I am confused.
Please stop gaslighting.
Your "proof" goes "poof" as soon as you realise that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement like the MOTL, not the MOTR. You’re stuck thinking it’s like the MOTR, and you’ll never progress from that. So, the discussion is over.
DREMPTY,
“Your “proof” goes “poof” as soon as you realise that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement like the MOTL, not the MOTR.”
Sorry, but my proof is explicitly addressing the MOTL, the one that keeps the same side generally facing the Earth.
It has nothing to do with the MOTR.
Although a corollary to my proof, would address the fact that the paths of the far side of the Moon and the near side of the Moon both travel the same speed and distance for the MOTR, proving that the MOTR is not spinning.
Also there are no celestial bodies that exhibit no rotation about an internal axis.
So you have no natural objects meeting that criteria.
You lost, bob. Discussion is over.
Well at least you tried to address my proof that the Moon is rotating on its axis, but failed.
The proof still stands, unmarked by your attempts to debunk it.
Now go suck eggs like your granny taught you.
bob, the minimum intellectual height for this ride is to get that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement as per the MOTL, not the MOTR. Until you can understand and accept that, there’s no point talking to you.
DREMPTY,
This is an Astronomy ride, the kinematics ride is over yonder.
The Moon revolves around the Earth.
OK, bob.
And rotates around an axis internal to the Moon.
Not OK, bob, but what’s the point in talking to you? Just think whatever you want.
DREMPTY,
I thought the discussion was over.
Why are you still responding to me?
I’m OK you are not.
Keep imagining that the Moon is not spinning on an internal axis, I’ll call the men in the white suits.
Sure, sure. Whatever you say, bob.
Good, DREMPTY agrees to four things.
1) He is wrong
2) Bob is right
3) The Moon rotates on an internal axis.
4) The discussion is over.
I agree to only the fourth, child.
DREMPTY,
Since you are not an Astronomer, Dunning-Kruger comes into play, and stay in your lane.
It’s very narrow, like roads in England.
If you say so, bob.
I agree with Newton, who agrees with you?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well quack, quack, quack.
Words that bring this to a close.
DREMPTY,
You disagree with Isaac Newton.
He is right, you are wrong.
Good thing that is settled.
Newton would have understood that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis.
DREMPTY,
Not if he could have seen the Astronauts video showing the ball rotating on its internal axis after the Astronaut released the string.
That’s because of Newton’s first law of motion.
An object in motion will stay in motion unless a force acts on it.
The astronaut releasing the string puts on force on the ball, so the observation that the ball is spinning after release means it was spinning before the string was released.
“The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.“
DREMPTY,
Thanks for supporting the case that the ball is spinning, both before and after the release.
“The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.
Yes, the tangential velocities of the outside and inside of the ball are different because the ball is rotating on an internal axis both before and after release.
Wrong, bob. It’s a quote from Tesla. The tangential velocities of the outside and inside of the ball are different because the ball is rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis before release.
DREMPTY,
Where is the force that started the ball spinning then?
You are running afoul of Newton’s laws again.
When you quote someone, you should note that.
Science education my ass.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1663437
So let’s review. The moon is spinning about its own center of gravity at precisely the same rate as its orbital period such that the same face always points toward earth. That is a very amazing fact that also leads to a lot of confusion for some folks. The rate of rotational spin is essentially constant because any outside influence such as meteor strikes is minimal.
The orbit is a different story. Although the net rotational period is the same as the spin, the path is elliptical.
For those scoring with the home game, most of the discussion here is dominated by people who think they are clever, but they never contribute anything of value. That is sad, but true. The endless back and forth with the same worthless comments would seem to be a waste of time. What do they gain?
[TS] For those scoring with the home game, most of the discussion here is dominated by people who think they are clever
[ALSO TS] What I have is high intelligence, the benefit of an exceptional education, real world experience, and professional writing skills.
This comment took me 45 seconds to write.
“Although the net rotational period is the same as the spin…”
The moon is not rotating about two different axes, Tim S. The least you could do is go along with most of the other “Spinners”, and say that the “orbit without spin” motion is translation, rather than rotation about an external axis.
According to the non-spinners, that must be exactly what the Moon is doing.
They consider the ‘base motion’ to be a rotation around an external axis.
The Moon’s orbit is not circular, so there is an additional translation needed to correct for that.
The Moon’s observable rotation is around an axis tilted @ 6.7 degrees to the orbital axis. And if that were an axis centered on the Earth, than the Moon’s WHOLE ORBIT would have a 6.7 degree tilt, but it does not.
So that would need to be fixed, likely by having one external rotation and one internal rotation around an axis with a somewhat different tilt than 6.7 degrees. Uggh.
Why the non-spinners want to create such f*ing mess of an explanation to account for the Moon’s motion, and inflict this on astronomers is anybody’s guess.
…the least you could do is go along with most of the other “Spinners”, and say that the “orbit without spin” motion is translation, rather than rotation about an external axis.
Exactly, Nate.
The moon is not rotating about two different axes.
“The moon is not rotating about two different axes.”
Yet his declared ‘base motion’ would require just that!
#2
The moon is not rotating about two different axes.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
#3
The moon is not rotating about two different axes.
Words that bring to a close.
#4
The moon is not rotating about two different axes.
Graham D. Warner
#5
The moon is not rotating about two different axes.
DREMT bizarrely thinks that repeating unsupported claims somehow makes them supported. And if the repeat is the LAST WORD, then even more so!
But he is wrong. For example, for the Earth we know that it rotates around axis tilted at 23.5 degrees, with a period 23 h 56 min.
Yet DREMT insists that it also is rotating around a different axis, the orbital axis, with a period of 365 days.
So that is him claiming the Earth has two rotations.
Then for the Moon, observationally it has a rotation around an axis tilted at 6.7 degrees and through its COM.
How do we know its not an axis through the Earth? Because if so, then the orbital motion of the Moon would also have to be in plane tilted at 6.7 degrees to the observed orbital plane, which makes no sense.
Yet DREMT claims it has a rotation around the external orbital axis.
So it must have two rotations around two axes, according to DREMT.
Yet he contradicts himself when he says the Moon has only one rotation.
#6
The moon is not rotating about two different axes.
DREMT cries out ‘look everyone, I have no argument!’ Want to see it again?
#7
The moon is not rotating about two different axes.
– Graham D. Warner
#8
The moon is not rotating about two different axes.
[Graham D. Warner]
#9
The moon is not rotating about two different axes.
(Graham D. Warner)
#10
The moon is not rotating about two different axes.
… as observed from Earth’s surface.
#11
The moon is not rotating about two different axes.
Yes DREMT 12:19 pm you got that motion right … as observed from Earth’s surface #11 The moon is not rotating about two different axes.
The Sun & Climate 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNgOuROW2iw
You say that I “got” nothing. What I have is high intelligence, the benefit of an exceptional education, real world experience, and professional writing skills. I wrote the above comment in about 20 minutes or so, with minimal editing. That included a few minutes to look up the current moon phase. I also freely admitted that I have made incorrect statements in some of my previous posts on the topic.
Whoops! I meant to post this elsewhere. Sorry.
Did you trip over your “high Intelligence”, Tim S?
Tim…can you explain who it is exactly who ‘has’ this intelligence? Sound like there are two people in there.
Has it ever occurred to you that no one ‘has’ intelligence, it is a phenomenon to which we are all privy when we stifle our egos and self-centres and allow it to operate.
Intelligence tests measure artificial intelligence, after all, how does one determine what intelligence is in order to create a test for it? Some people who can ace an IQ test are among the dumbest out there when it comes to other matters, especially relationships.
That’s here we all fall down as humans. We fail to use the intelligence available to create relationships that work. Clint, who took a shot at you above, cannot muster the basic intelligence to get along with people who disagree with him.
Clint R prefers Clint’s reality rather than natures reality. Gordon seeks a measure of artificial intelligence so I’d say that measure is fairly high as displayed on this blog.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Coming from ball4 who thinks heat is not energy but a transfer of energy. He refuses to answer what kind of energy heat is transferring. Since heat is the energy being transferred, according to b4, heat is a transfer of heat.
I claim b4 lacks the credentials to judge intelligence in others.
I apologize if I have embarrassed you in some way, but I would suggest that you are pretty good at doing that yourself. I think I gave you the closest thing to a compliment you are going to get from the sharks you swim with.
Tim S, heat has long been a figment of Gordon’s robust imagination so heat can be anything Gordon imagines. Physically EMR is not a transfer of heat, as Gordon writes, since EMR contains no measure of any molecules in motion. EMR is just a physical transfer of thermodynamic internal energy.
James Prescott Joule long ago experimentally proved heat is not contained in an object & Clausius then agreed with Joule that heat is just a measure.
Ball4,
You wrote “James Prescott Joule long ago experimentally proved heat is not contained in an object & Clausius then agreed with Joule that heat is just a measure.”
Objects seem to contain heat – they have a temperature. You can’t actually say what “heat” is, can you? Maybe you agree with Clausius that “heat is just a measure”? A measure of something “not contained in an object”?
I guess you are going to claim that someone measures this “heat” of yours – which apparently only exists in a vacuum, if it is not contained in an object (objects being composed of matter, rather than vacuum).
It might help if you learnt some physics, so that you gave the appearance that you know what you are talking about. For example, you claim the Earth has two different temperatures – 288 K or 255 K, depending on what sort of thermometer is used!
Is the temperature of a body related to the heat in a body, or something nobody but you understands?
“Perhaps we were right in some respects. Figuring out how to get a million people to live on the moon was certainly less urgent and more difficult than what we actually did: making people wealthier and healthier here on Earth.”
https://www.discoursemagazine.com/p/what-big-thing-are-we-getting-wrong
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
There is no reason to have a million people living on the Moon- unless living on the Moon allows to live 20 more years.
Which is possible. Mainly because we do not know if living on the Moon will allow people to live longer. Other than falling is large part of what kills older people.
But otherwise, there is no reason to live on Moon- thousands could live on the Moon, but what’s sense in millions? With the Moon, one work on the Moon, while living on Earth.
One could have millions of visitors per year, going to the Moon, but why live there?
Even if housing was a lot cheaper, that isn’t much of draw, to living on the Moon.
Now, compare this with living in Venus orbit. So, solar energy is actually “free” energy. Venus is the hub of solar system. Venus is where you go, if you want to go anywhere in solar system.
Venus orbit and where everything is brought from the solar system to.
Venus future has water cheaper than on Earth. And rocket fuel cheaper than on Earth. And everyone can use Orion nuclear rockets.
rlh…”The outer wheel travels further/faster than the inner one. Does that not cause a rotation of the car around its axis?”
***
In order to rotate, the tires have to lose friction with the surface. When that happens, there is no doubt that the car is rotating about its COG.
I have been in such situations on the Canadian Prairies on ice. It’s a helpless feeling since there is no way to control it. The solution is ice tires that are designed with rubber that sticks to ice, at least, down to a certain temperature, where they freeze too.
“The solution is ice tires that are designed with rubber that sticks to ice,”
Do you mean studded tires {metal studs in them} or something I have never heard about?
No, There are special tires with a type of softer rubber that grips ice.
eg. https://www.michelin.ca/en/auto/tires/michelin-x-ice-snow
Oh, I have heard of winter tires [without metal studs].
And I can’t speak of merits claimed of the ad.
gb….these are more than winter tires, they are specially designed for driving on ice. When I was returning from Edmonton during winter, I had winter tires on my vehicle, but at one point on a mountain summit I could not keep the vehicle on the road. Yet, people with ice tires were driving by as normal.
Here in BC, we don’t need ice tires in the Vancouver region and winter tires work fine. But, in Alberta, where the roads are often icy, ice tires are required.
There was no mention of ice.
“In order to rotate, the tires have to lose friction with the surface”
Oh really? So the entire time your wheels are rotating your tyres have lost friction? Interesting.
Do try to use whatever brain power you have Ark. Even if you are trying to be funny, your humour is lame.
We were talking about rotation about a COG, not tire rotation.
In the context of ice, when in a skid, there is no way for spinning tires to grip anything, therefore the car spins about its COG. It does not do that on a dry track unless speeds are excessive.
That’s the context this discussion is about. A car driven around a dry track, where the tires are gripping the surface properly, cannot rotate about its COG. Al all time, the COG is moving parallel to the tires. For rotation to take effect, the tires must be rotating about the COG.
This “brainpower” you believe you have … is this brainpower that causes you to keep confusing “ant” with “ark”?
LIVE: Explosions Reported In Iran, Iraq and Syria – Israeli Airstrikes Suspected
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH83jVRQmMg
Everyone remember Baghdad Bob. I think I saw Tehran Bob tonight.
We must not forget the Iranians who do not agree with their Draconian Muslim leadership and who would gladly see them gone. All steps should be taken to protect them.
DREMT,
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1412190111
As you know, this study is purported by many as to what the cause of modern-day warming is.
This study says that the reason for the positive planetary energy imbalance is due to ASR feedback. To explain the CERES observations (increasing OLR), they use a mean of ensembles: the stronger the ASR feedback, the shorter the amount of time it takes for OLR to return to its unperturbed state because it’s offsetting the initial OLR reduction.
This study conducted simulations from general circulation models to estimate the radiative responses of shortwave and longwave radiation from a 4*CO2 forcing only, while keeping all other factors constant.
My main criticism with this approach is the fact that there is no real-world basis for it, because the other factors are never constant. Are these your criticisms?
Input from other commentators is, of course, welcome too.
My question always is…where’s the evidence that there even is (or would have been) an "initial OLR reduction"? They can’t provide evidence of that. It’s just assumed.
The “evidence for that” (DREMT term) is now measured (long after 2014’s discussion of GCM results) with real world factors not kept constant but DREMT, being a demonstrated layman in the field, has not yet comprehended the published reports.
Ball4,
What mechanism allows GHGs to cause a reduction in clouds?
No, Ball4, it is not measured. Total OLR has "been rising since 1985, and correlates well with the rising global temperature", according to Dewitte and Clerbaux, 2018. Since that dates back to when records of OLR began, how can you claim that "an initial reduction" in OLR has ever been measured!? It quite simply hasn’t been.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“The “evidence for that” (DREMT term) is now measured (long after 2014s discussion of GCM results) with real world factors not kept constant but DREMT, being a demonstrated layman in the field, has not yet comprehended the published reports.”
Complete nonsense. On the one hand, you claim that IR thermometers agree with “kinetic” (whatever that means) thermometers – when you use one in your kitchen.
On the other hand, you claim that IR thermometers pointed at the Earth disagree with “kinetic” thermometers on the surface – reading 33 K lower!
That’s about as silly as pointing your IR thermometer at a glass of iced water, and getting a reading of -33 C! The surface of the Earth has only one temperature (degree of hotness) at one point in time. Which temperature are you claiming is correct? Either 288 K or 255K is a figment of your imagination – which one do you prefer?
N wonder you can’t describe the GHE – you can’t even describe how the Earth’s surface manages to be hotter and colder at the same time. Take care – your brain might explode trying to understand physics.
Carry on.
Walter, the computer programming they employ is worthless, based on their own statement: “The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms.”
The GHE is NOT well-established. They can’t even come up with a description/definition that doesn’t violate the principles of physics.
They’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
So in that case, the observed ASR wouldn’t even be a feedback. Nature is just modifying cloud cover in the tropics all by itself. Sounds reasonable to me.
I have doubts that the planet’s energy imbalance can be detected and tracked with such claimed precision.
Clint,
The operators of the Ivanpah facility would love to be able to reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation from their solar heated molten salts at night.
Unfortunately, they can’t, the salts cool, become solid, and require large amounts of fossil fuel in the form of natural gas to heat them every morning. The result is that approximately 30% of electricity generated by the “solar plant” is actually produced by burning fossil fuel!
And getting worse.
Oh dear, if someone could just figure out a way of “trapping” heat from the Sun, and “storing” it, that would be good. Or stopping “outgoing longwave radiation” from “outgoing”, that would be good too. Even better might be using the 324 W/m2 of “back radiation” instead of having to emit tens of thousands of tons of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
I’m sure a fanatical GHE cultist “climate scientist” could come up with a suitable fantasy, where reality can be ignored.
What they miss Walter is what Shula revealed about radiation as a heat dissipator. It is 260 times less effective than conduction/convection at removing heat from a surface.
It seems obvious that the GHE effect is wrong and that the planet, and all other planets, warm because radiation cannot dissipate heat nearly as fast as solar energy can inject heat. That’s your warming mechanism and it is 100% natural.
Also, as Christos repeatedly points out, and gb about the oceans, there are different mechanisms that process and deal with solar energy input. It is by no means as simple as energy in versus energy out, there are processes between that interfere in that simple theory.
Ergo, the planet is warmer than it should be because heat cannot be removed as fast as it is absorbed.
Gordon incorrectly believes: “It is 260 times less effective than conduction/convection at removing heat from a surface.”
Radiative heat transfer cannot be consistently compared to conductive heat transfer because the rates vary with temperature. Conductive heat transfer is proportional to the temperature difference. It is a linear relation. Radiative heat transfer is proportional to the 4th power of the emitting surface’s temperature. It is a nonlinear relation.
Gordon doesn’t understand any of this. He doesn’t even know what time it is. He clogs the blog as therapy for his mental issues.
Clint was not paying attention when Shula proved, using a Pirani gauge, that radiation alone is 260 times less effective at removing heat from a surface than conduction/convection. Shula, with a Masters degree in theoretic physics, and who has a vast amount of experience using vacuums in the electronics industry, has worked extensively with the Pirani gauge and witnessed this effect numerous times.
The Pirani gauge has a filament wire in a glass tube where the filament can be heated to a known wattage. The tube can have the air evacuated so that the rate of heat dissipation from the filament can be measured with radiation alone. Then air can be introduced so the rate of heat dissipation can be compared directly to the dissipation with radiation alone.
I would think this would interest, Clint, since he claims to be a skeptic and Shula’s info reveals clearly why the atmosphere warms. Then again, Clint, like his buddy Ball4, does not think heat exists as an energy but is merely a measure of ‘energy’. Neither Clint nor B4 will name the energy transferred which many of us know is heat.
Clint is an odd duck at times. He claims to be a skeptic but he often talks like an alarmist. When he attacks skeptics for unknown reasons, along with alarmists, one has to wonder about his motivation in commenting at all. He has the qualities of a trohl, who tend to raise shzt for no other reason than being noticed.
I don’t always agree with the comments of fellow skeptics but I understand the overall need to refrain from unwarranted criticism o fellow skeptics. Our opinions need to respect the overall goal of fighting the lies of climate alarmists. Clint is more concerned with maintaining his image than having loyalty to others.
Your very first sentence is incorrect, Gordon. What Shula “proved” is an extremely low emissivity object will not be able to transfer energy as well as conduction and convection.
But, don’t try to understand. You don’t even know what time it is.
Likely the rest of your comment is just your usual mindless rambling, as needed for your therapy.
Clint R
I do agree with your statement. I have also explained this to Gordon Robertson but his mind cannot understand it.
YOU: “What Shula proved is an extremely low emissivity object will not be able to transfer energy as well as conduction and convection.”
Radiation vs assisted cooling is a little bit misleading.
Radiation from an; object at 20 C into a vacuum will result in a certain heat loss, and cooling. Pouring liquid nitrogen on it will result in a faster heat loss. Or blowing air at 10 C across the object.
Blowing 10 C air too fast might actually heat the object, due to friction. On the other hand, keeping the object wet while blowing air on it, will probably increase the rate of heat loss – the principle used in evaporative air conditioners.
At night, convection at the Earth’s surface is minimal, but the surface cools anyway – even if a low level inversion means that the atmosphere is hotter than the surface! Radiation, pure and simple.
Still no GHE, so maybe much ado about nothing.
What his really proves is that Clint and his Buddy Norman have a low level of comprehension. Shula talks at no time about emissivity and there’s a reason for that. The Pirani gauge measures power dissipation over a time factor and emissivity has nothing to do with that.
Whether it takes 1 minute, 5 minutes, or an hour to determine heat loss, we are interested in heat loss, not emissivity. The surface will cool by the same amount over time no matter the emissivity.
Power is measured by the current through the Pirani gauge filament, which is a resistance in a Wheatstone bridge. Whether the emissivity is high or low on the filament is irrelevant. I doubt that either of you can equate heat dissipation to a difference in emissivity anyway.
Both of you are hung up on the nonsense that S-B applies at room temperature. This has nothing to do with S-B anyway, it’s about running a current through a resistance, limiting the temperature between 50C and 100C, and monitoring the current. The current drop will tell you far more about the heat dissipated than calculating it via emissivity.
The Pirani gauge gives a direct measurement of current change in the filament due to heat dissipation. The heat produced by a resistance and the current through it are well known factors in electrical theory. As the filament cools due to radiation alone, the null meter in the bridge changes. By measuring the current required to bring the meter back to the null position, the power dissipate by radiation is known.
Also, the time required for it to cool is known. By repeating with air in the tube, the time to taken to dissipate the heat is 260 times less than by radiation alone. The emissivity would make little or no difference.
Shula commenting on the inordinately long time it takes the filament to cool once the power is shut off. That is proof along that radiation is a poor heat dissipator. We already know that due to our experience with a thermos.
Yes Norman, Gordon is a crackpot. A “crackpot” is basically a “cult-of-one”. You’re not a crackpot because you belong to an established cult. But both a crackpot and a cultist reject reality.
Gordon clogs the blog with his nonsense. I usually don’t read his comments past the first sentence or two. He rambles so much he often proves himself wrong. It’s fun to watch.
Look at Gordon’s second sentence, from his last comment: “Shula talks at no time about emissivity and there’s a reason for that.”. You can NOT omit emissivity when talking about EMISSION!
Gordon clogs the blog with his nonsense. He proves once again that he doesn’t understand the basic science. A small list of his lack of understanding — Heat, Energy, Entropy, Photons, Flux, 2LoT, Gravity, Current Flow, S/B Law, Vectors, Watts, IR thermometers, Electron Transitions, Charge, and now, Emissivity!
You understand some of the basics much better than Gordon, but do you see how much you are like him with your rejection of reality? Do you see how much you resemble him when you’re proven wrong and you resort to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations?
Clint R
No I go by established physics. If you can demonstrate your ideas are based upon real physics I could accept them. When you say radiant energy can’t be absorbed from a cooler object I reject this idea as it has no basis in established science and experimental evidence shows that is not the case.
Also I have given you an example of orbit without spin (all your examples are not of orbit without spin they are just rotation about a center, no an orbit). a ball on a string is not orbiting, it is just rotating about a center.
Take the two can example I have already given you. Make a video of you moving (similar to orbiting) the outside can around the center one. Do not rotate it as you move it around (no twisting of your hand). You will see all sides of the can face the center. If you try to keep the same side facing the center you will find you must rotate the can to maintain this configuration as you move the can in a circular path around the center can. Make a video like DREMT did no just rotation around a center. You can see both orbit with no rotation (of the “orbiting” can…the one you move around the center) and orbit with one rotation per orbit.
Try it, make the video and post it on this blog.
There you go again, Norman, misrepresenting me. Where did I ever say radiant energy from a colder object can not be absorbed?
And your rejection of the simple ball-on-a-string is a perfect example of you rejecting reality.
See how you have to resort to cult techniques, because you’ve got NOTHING.
Clint R
You have stated that the radiant energy from a colder body will not be absorbed by the hotter one. I do not plan to find the many times you have made this claim.
The “ball-on-the-string” is not an orbiting body. It is just a rotating one about a central point. Like a tire on an axle. The tire rotates around the center of the axle. It is not considered to be orbiting around the axle.
Have you even attempted to make a video with the cans. I will reject your invalid opinions of me until you show some real evidence.
Opinions are easy to say. You can claim I reject reality, your opinion, providing evidence is much more difficult.
Show me how you can have a can that moves as an orbiting body around a center can and does not rotate as it keeps the same face toward the center can. Stop the empty opinions and make the video. Show that I am wrong. Or just continue with empty opinions based upon nothing. Your choice.
There you go again, Norman, misrepresenting me. Where did I ever say radiant energy from a colder object can not be absorbed? You got caught again. Own up to your fraud.
And your rejection of the simple ball-on-a-string is a perfect example of you rejecting reality.
See how you have to resort to cult techniques, because you’ve got NOTHING.
Norman,
I remember something about frequency incompatability or somesuch lame excuse inconsistent with modern physics.
Too bad his quantum physics textbook is still wrapped in plastic.
Bob spells badly
incompatibility
Never the less, one does not use a Pirani guage at anywhere near atmospheric pressure.
One measures pressure in a cyclotron first with an electronic pressure gauge, then a Penning gauge, and finally a Pirani guage as the cyclotron is brought down to its normal operation pressure.
At that operating pressure there is very little convection or conduction of heat going on.
It’s now been over 24 hours, and Norman has not supported his false claim. He has “left the building”.
This is his typical behavior. He makes false accusations, then leaves. Later he returns to do the same thing again. He gets caught and then resorts to insults.
Go ahead Clint,
Rotate a ball around a central object without letting go and keeping the face of the ball towards the central object three times without breaking your arm.
I am sure you can do it, I’ll even pay for your hospital bill.
“I am sure you can do it, Ill even pay for your hospital bill.”
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
” He gets caught and then resorts to insults.”
Hmm, that reminds me of someone. Yeah..Clint!
He gets caught saying stoopid unsupportable fake science, then resorts to insults… It must be everyone else’s fault, for ‘being unable to learn’ the fake science that he, in any case, never explains.
There is not any atmospheric +33C greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correct! The 33C is bogus.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1557312
Thank you, Clint. The 33C is bogus.
Exactly, Christos. The temperature of anything is what it is – not what it could be, would be, or should be.
Thank you, Swenson. They forget the 288K is Earth’s annual average surface temperature, which has been estimated by the satellite measurements.
The 288K is not measured by the “net” of thermometers.
tim s…”I apologize if I have embarrassed you in some way, but I would suggest that you are pretty good at doing that yourself. I think I gave you the closest thing to a compliment you are going to get from the sharks you swim with”.
***
No apology required but a little less arrogance might suffice. I was merely noting your claim that you ‘have intelligence’. That’s a mistake we humans tend to make, believing we have control over intelligence, or many other natural processes. You seem to think that a high level of education allows you to have intelligence that is not available to others.
Some of the most stoopid errors and assump.tions are made by highly educated people. I claim that intelligence is not something a human mind ‘has’, rather it is a universal phenomenon to which we are privileged at times to encounter.
Insight allows us to encounter intelligence and that would seem to indicate that intelligence is not part of the mind naturally, but something which minds can encounter under certain circumstances. That same mind is also prone to the highest stoopidity.
I am speaking from experience. I thank the powers that be constantly for allowing me to survive my stoopidity, which at times has compromised my life.
Consider Bohr in 1914 as he sought an answer to why the hydrogen atom emitted and absorbed EM at discrete frequencies. He knew about electrons, discovered in 1898, but he had no idea what a relationship may be between EM and electrons. Suddenly, with a flash of insight, he got it that electrons were emitting and absorbing EM based on their orbital energy levels.
We still don’t know if his theory is correct since we have never seen electrons in orbit. We can’t even predict their orbits, only offer a spacial distribution of where they are likely to be found. After that brilliant insight, Bohr went on to performs some of the most stoopid science imaginable re quantum theory.
Same with Einstein, after a brilliant insight into the photoelectric effect, he bumbled the rest of his life trying to impose an ijiotic theory of space and time onto the real, physical universe.
ball4…”Tim S, heat has long been a figment of Gordons robust imagination so heat can be anything Gordon imagines. Physically EMR is not a transfer of heat, as Gordon writes, since EMR contains no measure of any molecules in motion. EMR is just a physical transfer of thermodynamic internal energy.
James Prescott Joule long ago experimentally proved heat is not contained in an object & Clausius then agreed with Joule that heat is just a measure”.
***
B4 paraphrases my comments on EM and now claims it as his own. That’s good in a way, it means he is slowly cluing into the fact that heat is a form of energy which is unrelated to EM. However, B4 is still in either denial or ignorance, or both, in that he thinks EM is a physical transfer of thermodynamic internal energy.
Thermodynamic internal energy is simply another description for heat. However, B4 is omitting the work factor in internal energy that describes the vibrations of atoms in a solid. Therefore, according to B4, EM needs a means of transferring the work representing the work factor in internal energy in order to be transferring his ‘thermodynamics internal energy’.
The truth is that B4 has painted himself into a corner from which he is trying to extract himself using pseudo-science. Rather than admit that heat is a form of energy he buys into the current pseudo-science that heat is a measure of energy transfer, with the energy being undefined.
Then B4 perpetuates his lies about Joule and Clausius. Clausius stated clearly that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. Clausius knew that kinetic energy is not a description of a type of energy but merely a descriptor for energy in motion. He knew that the energy of atoms in motion is called heat, the name given to that particular form of KE.
Joule proved a relationship between heat and work but only that the two are equivalent, not equal. He ran a small paddle in water and noted that the water warmed. From that he relate the amount of work done in joules to the heat produced in calories. Therefore Joule understood clearly that heat and work are both forms of energy.
tim s…”The moon question is a problem of perception and a study in the importance of taking the correct frame of reference”.
***
Frames of reference have nothing to do with whether a body is rotating bout a local axis. Only a philosopher would think so. Frames of reference are mental constructs that help the human mind sort out relative motions.
If a mass is rotating about a local axis, it is doing so because it has a physical momentum about that axis. There is nothing in frame theory that can stop that rotation once established. The only way it can stop rotating is if a real, physical force opposes its angular momentum.
In other words, if a mass is rotating in one reference frame, it is rotating in all reference frames. the fact that the human mind can create illusions in which the mass stops rotating because the human mind sees it doing that while another frame rotates, has nothing to do with physical reality. It is an illusion pertinent to the human minds ability to create illusions.
We know the Earth rotates on a local axis and we see the Sun during a partial rotation 365 times per year. The other portion of rotation we face away from the Sun. Let’s slow the rotational rate down to twice an orbit. That means twice a year we are facing the Sun and twice we face away from it. So, reduce the rotations to one. It is obvious that we would still see the Sun once and point away from it once.
Same with the Moon. It would not be possible to keep the same side pointing at Earth.
> Frames of reference have nothing to do with whether a body is rotating bout a local axis.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
Did you read what I said, Mr. Hogwart? If a body is rotating about an internal axis it has angular momentum and viewing the rotating body from any other reference frame cannot change that angular momentum. Only an opposing force can change it, or stop it.
You space cadets seem to think you can mentally stop that angular momentum.
Does Mr. Asshat not know what “local axis” means?
Perhaps he could tell us how he fancies to measure the absolute rotation of the Earth or the Moon.
“Does Mr. Asshat not know what “local axis” means?”
Just because you don’t know, do you really need to boast about your ignorance?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Even absolute space needs to be a frame of reference to work.
What are you braying about?
Does Mr. Asshat not know what “local axis” means?
Just because you don’t know, do you really need to boast about your ignorance?
Writing “Even absolute space needs to be a frame of reference to work.” is not really a declaration of intellectual superiority, is it? Do you even read what you write, or is your gibberish machine attached to your keyboard?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordo the self proclaimed engineer repeats his usual confusion, writing:
Gordo’s error is that “any other reference frame” should actually read: “any other INERTIAL reference frame”. That’s basic Engineering Dynamics 101. A body’s rotation must be measured against an inertial reference frame, just like it’s velocity must also be measured.
E. Swanson, you don’t understand orbital motion.
Your “inertial reference frame” can NOT tell the difference between orbiting and spinning.
Get a responsible adult to explain the ball-on-a-string to you.
Clint,
The **** it can’t.
You can’t handle the math.
“You cant handle the math.”
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“Step 1 Pure Denial”
Willard, please stop trolling.
The lunar spin deniers can tell on this blog whatever they want: all what they tell is based on guessing, together with what Nikola Tesla wrote in 1919 in a pamphlet, based own his personal views, without any scientific reference to what hundreds of scientists computed centuries ago.
If they had any knowledge in spherical trigonometry, they would understand that
while over a year, craters on the Moon look as if they would stay on the same place every day,
their spatial coordinates, obtained by successively disconnecting the craters’ positions from both terrestrial and orbital dependencies, show that they actually dont: rather, they move over time, in a perfectly regular spin motion about Moon’s polar axis.
*
Nikola Tesla would have understood that immediately after reading Mayers 1750 treatise, especially the following chapters:
7. Astronomical observations on the position of the lunar spots on the lunar disk
8. Determination of the position of the Moon spots in view of the apparent parallel
9. Determination of the position of the Moonspots with respect to the true parallel
10. Determination of the position of the Moonspots in relation to the circle of latitude
11. Determination of the position of the Moonspots in relation to the ecliptic on the Moon
12. Explanations and remarks on the properties of the Moon’s motion around its axis
13. Determination of the inclination of the lunar equator in relation to the ecliptic and the location of the equinoxial points
14. Determination of the time in which the Moon rotates around its axis
16. Determination of the lunar longitude and latitude of the Moon spots
*
Unlike ignoramus Robertson and his groupies, an engineer like Tesla would have understood why Mayer’s lunar crater position tables were so exact: he computed the craters’ real selenographical coordinates with respect to both Moon’s polar spin axis and the First Point of Aries, making their positions thus independent of all these merely apparent longitudinal, latitudinal and diurnal libration effects which we observe from Earth.
*
Unlike Clint R (Robertson’s most ignorant groupie), an engineer like Tesla never would have discredited Mayer and all other ancient astronomers, mathematicians and physicists as ‘astrologer’s.
*
Source
Mayer’s treatise
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790
Figures referred in the treatise
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913769
*
Addendum
It might be somewhat irritating to read, in the context of the lunar spin, the expression ‘physical libration’.
Physical librations have nothing in common with the optical libration effects mentioned above.
They are very tiny but real wobblings within the lunar spin, which inevitably were detected by astronomers as their observation tools’ precision increased over time (star-calibrated lunar photography, lunar laser ranging).
Binny,
You wrote –
“Nikola Tesla would have understood . . . “. In your opinion, of course, unless you believe you can commune with the dead.
Maybe you can name someone who values your opinion, but I doubt it.
The Moon doesn’t seem to care. As you might guess, neither do I.
Have fun.
Bindi, if you had a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, you would not need all that extraneous rambling.
Where’s your viable model?
You’ve got NOTHING.
Sorry Clint,
There are no observed celestial objects that do not spin.
The ball on a string is spinning.
So you have no model of orbiting without spin either.
All wrong, bob.
There are many celestial objects that do not spin.
The ball is NOT spinning, as it orbits.
Your problem is that you don’t know the difference between “orbiting” and “spinning”. You don’t understand any of this, and you can’t learn.
Why are you here?
I am here because I have fun correcting you luddites.
Exactly. bob.
Thanks for admitting that.
Bindidon, Norman and RLH all agree that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis passing through the CoM of the ball itself. Are you saying they’re luddites, bob?
DREMPTY,
The axis of rotation need not be through the center of mass.
The Moon has a bulge towards the Earth.
So no, I do not disagree with them.
You’re a real piece of work, bob. OK…Bindidon, Norman and RLH all agree that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis passing through the ball itself. Are you saying they’re luddites?
No I am not.
I only called Clint a luddite.
By the way DREMPTY,
This is what Bindidon actually just said:
“their spatial coordinates, obtained by successively disconnecting the craters positions from both terrestrial and orbital dependencies, show that they actually dont: rather, they move over time, in a perfectly regular spin motion about Moons polar axis.”
and
“Determination of the time in which the Moon rotates around its axis”
and even this
“The lunar spin deniers can tell on this blog whatever they want: all what they tell is based on guessing,”
Do you want to quote exactly what Norman and RLH said?
And this is what RLH said
“The Moon spins once on its axis per orbit as everybody (nearly) agrees.”
Pseudomod
” Bindidon, Norman and RLH all agree that the ball on a string is not rotating about an axis passing through the CoM of the ball itself. ”
*
The fact that you not only can’t stop pointing out this absolutely irrelevant detail, but also – despite my repeated requests – endlessly, unduly keep associating me with it, doesn’t make you an honest person at all.
*
For the last time, Pseudomod: keep me off you permanent pseudo-scientific bullshit.
I know: ‘Heil Freedom of Speech’ is this blog’s very first rule.
This is no reason to intentionally misrepresent other people’s opinions in order to misuse them as advocates for your own cause.
Bindi, if you had a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, you would not need all that extraneous rambling.
Where’s your viable model?
Without something, you’ve got NOTHING.
Look…
…I know that Bindidon, Norman and RLH all think the moon rotates on its own internal axis. That’s kind of the point.
Despite the fact that they think the moon rotates on its own internal axis, they still aren’t dumb enough to believe that a ball on a string is somehow spinning on its own axis, despite being held in place by the string!
Bindidon, I’m going to keep mentioning it for as long as you comment here. That doesn’t make me dishonest. Why should I have to argue against people that say a ball on a string is spinning on its own axis, when you don’t even think that a ball on a string is spinning on its own axis! You know what you said. So own it. Actually have the "balls" (Bindidon term) to argue against people who are saying such silly stuff, even if you think it’s an "absolutely irrelevant detail"!
> viable model
A viable model of what, Puffman –
Something that doesn’t exist?
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
DREMPTY,
“despite being held in place by the string!”
Right, just like I said, when the string isn’t moving, that’s the only time the ball can not be rotating.
When the string is moving, it’s the force provided by the spinner, making the ball rotate on its axis.
When the ball is moving, the string is not holding it in place.
Comedy Gold.
Yes, bob. Comedy gold.
How is something that is moving held in place?
Take a tetherball. Pull the ball outwards from the pole so the string is taut. Can you rotate the ball on its own internal axis? No. When the ball is swinging around the pole, the string is taut. Can the ball be rotating on its own internal axis? No.
DREMPTY,
Looks like you never played tetherball.
Of course the tetherball spins on the axis through the center of the string.
But that is irrelevant to the discussion.
Anyway the string doesn’t prevent the tetherball from spinning.
And the outside of the tetherball moves faster than the string side, yet the tetherball does not come apart.
Hence the tetherball rotates on an axis perpendicular to the axis of the string.
“Of course the tetherball spins on the axis through the center of the string.”
Which is of course not what I meant.
“But that is irrelevant to the discussion.”
Yep.
“Anyway the string doesn’t prevent the tetherball from spinning.”
Yes, it does.
“And the outside of the tetherball moves faster than the string side, yet the tetherball does not come apart. Hence the tetherball rotates on an axis perpendicular to the axis of the string”
An axis located at the pole.
it’s been over 24 hours and Bindi has not provided a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. He will clog the blog endlessly attacking the simple ball-on-a-string, but he has NOTHING to offer in its place.
DREMPTY,
“An axis located at the pole.”
That doesn’t provide the correct amount to keep the ball from coming apart.
Sorry for your loss.
bob thinks “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement as per the MOTR, still. Hence he loses another one.
DREMPTY,
I guess you keep forgetting that I keep saying that the Moon is not rotating about an external axis since it is revolving in an ellipse.
So you gaslight me again.
Not talking about the moon, specifically, bob. Just "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis", generally.
DREMPTY,
You literally just said it was about the Moon.
LSOS
No, bob. We were talking about a tetherball.
DREMPTY
Now you want to argue about what we were arguing about.
“bob thinks rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is movement as per the MOTR, still. Hence he loses another one.”
This is what I was responding to.
LSOS
I thought we were done.
The MOTL/MOTR GIF is just an animation, bob. It’s not actually the moon. You know that, right? It’s just a way to communicate the idea of two different motions. In this case, we were talking about a tetherball, which moves as per the MOTL. Everything about your understanding on this issue fails because you think “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement as per the MOTR, rather than what it actually is, which is movement like the MOTL. Everything. You will be perpetually confused for the rest of your life on this issue, until you straighten that out inside your head. But, it’s not my problem. Carry on being dumb.
DREMPTY,
You don’t bother to read what I write.
“Everything about your understanding on this issue fails because you think rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is movement as per the MOTR, rather than what it actually is, which is movement like the MOTL.”
It’s not a rotation, because the Moon revolves in an elliptical orbit.
I DON’T BELIEVE ROTATION ABOUT AN EXTERNAL AXIS WITH NO ROTATION ABOUT AN INTERNAL AXIS IS MOVEMENT AS PER THE MOTR.
My proof does not rely on the gif at all.
Read the caption again, it says the MOTL is the one that is rotating, and the MOTR is not.
And stop gaslighting me.
“I DON’T BELIEVE ROTATION ABOUT AN EXTERNAL AXIS WITH NO ROTATION ABOUT AN INTERNAL AXIS IS MOVEMENT AS PER THE MOTR.“
You have argued for years that you do think that.
Pointless talking to you. You can’t keep your story straight from one comment to the next.
“My proof does not rely on the gif at all.”
Your “proof” was about the ball on a string, or tetherball in this thread. When I refute it, by pointing out that the ball’s motion is simply a rotation about an axis in the pole, with no rotation about an internal axis, you switch to talking about the moon. Obviously, if you agree that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement as per the MOTL, or the tetherball, you must see that your “proof” goes “poof”! So, instead, you just waffle on about elliptical orbits for the real moon, even though the ball is moving in a circle, as does the animated moon in the GIF!
DREMPTY,
“You have argued for years that you do think that.”
Not really, because I always thought that part of your argument is irrelevant, an I let you have it.
Back when, you used an Astronomers description of an external rotation meaning a revolution, but you ignore that specification.
The fact of my proof that the outside moves farther than the inside of the ball on a string, the tetherball, and the Moon still stands.
Whether or not the Moon, ball, or tetherball is rotating on an external axis or not.
Your argument that the object is a rotation is irrelevant.
"The fact of my proof that the outside moves farther than the inside of the ball on a string, the tetherball, and the Moon still stands."
bob, obviously the outside of the tetherball moves further than the inside of the tetherball. That’s part of what identifies the motion as being "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis". That is movement like the MOTL. Why are people getting so confused about this!? Since "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement as per the MOTL, rotation about two axes (one external and one internal to the body) would not be movement as per the MOTL.
DREMPTY,
You got a fallacy going on there.
It’s called affirming the consequent.
You are basically saying that the Moon does not rotate because the Moon does not rotate.
or
Since the Moon is an example of orbital motion without axial rotation then the Moon is not rotating.
Wrong, bob, I’m not even talking about the moon. What will it take to get you to understand that when I’m talking about a tetherball, I’m actually talking about a tetherball!?
The tetherball is not rotating about an internal axis. It’s rotating about an external axis, located at the pole. Your "proof" involves looking at the fact that the outside of the tetherball moves further than the inside, and saying "well, it doesn’t tear itself apart, so it must be rotating about an internal axis"…which is absurd, because the ball changes orientation due to its rotation about an external axis.
You simply don’t understand, or accept (despite your protestations in capital letters) that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement like the MOTL, not the MOTR. If you truly accepted it, you would drop your "proof"…obviously!
Such a pointless discussion…
Your argument boils down to the Moon, ball, and tetherball are not rotating on an internal axis because they are not rotating on an internal axis.
You are arguing in circles, and have nothing to support your argument.
Wrong, bob. I am not making any argument here as to why the tetherball is not rotating on its own internal axis. I am simply pointing out how illogical your “proof” is. If you want to understand why the tetherball is not rotating on its own internal axis, try the argument I already made, that you completely ignored:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1662596
DREPTY,
That argument fails because translation in a circle is the same as rotation about an external axis, or rotation in a circle.
So that does not distinguish between a) and b).
"…translation in a circle is the same as rotation about an external axis"
False…and you’ve effectively already agreed that’s false, by saying:
"I DON’T BELIEVE ROTATION ABOUT AN EXTERNAL AXIS WITH NO ROTATION ABOUT AN INTERNAL AXIS IS MOVEMENT AS PER THE MOTR"
DREMPTY,
No, because I was only talking about the orbit, the path, or the external rotation.
And not the internal axis rotation.
This is what I said
“That argument fails because translation in a circle is the same as rotation about an external axis, or rotation in a circle.
So that does not distinguish between a) and b).”
No mention of axial rotation in there, pitcher.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jOk8dk-qaU
Axial rotation and orbit are totally independent.
An object can not have zero spin only if it faces one distant star continuously, and the Moon does not do that, it spins with a period equal to its orbital period.
Translation in a circle and rotation about an external axis are not the same, bob.
Translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) would be movement like the MOTR.
Rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) would be movement like the MOTL.
You have already agreed that rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) is not movement like the MOTR, thus you must agree it is as per the MOTL.
So, you have already effectively agreed that translation in a circle and rotation about an external axis are different.
DREMPTY.
“Translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) would be movement like the MOTR.
Rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) would be movement like the MOTL.”
Nope, both of these examples would be like the MOTR, if the Moon was moving in a circle, but it’s not.
Hint: The MOTR is the one that is not rotating on an internal axis.
The MOTL is rotating on an internal axis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_of_astronomical_bodies
The Moon is rotating and its poles point towards Draco and Dorado.
1) We are talking about a ball on a string, or tetherball, which does move in a circle. We are not talking about the moon.
2). You are wrong, and going back on what you said previously.
DREMPTY,
It’s always about the Moon and whether it rotates on an internal axis or not.
You disagree with Isaac Newton, you are wrong, Isaac Newton was correct.
You think you are smarter than Isaac Newton, I gotta tell you, you are not.
The fact is you mention the Moon four times in your last post that I responded to.
Incorrect, bob, I mentioned the MOTL/MOTR, which, as I already explained, is just a way of communicating the idea of two different motions. The subject is not the moon, the subject is the tetherball/ball on a string. You went back on yourself. Deal with that.
DREMPTY,
So then we are done talking about the Moon, and you concede that the Moon is rotating on its axis because the axis has been observed and it is known where the axes point too.
Anyway, you continue to miss my main point, that orbits are not rotations.
Writh that 100 times.
Orbits are not rotations.
The rope on a tetherball wraps around the pole, meaning the tetherball does not rotate in a circle, more like a spiral.
And the ball on a string is not a model for the Moons orbit, it’s just a model for external rotation with axial rotation.
Deal with it.
DREMPTY,
Furthermore
“You have already agreed that rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) is not movement like the MOTR, thus you must agree it is as per the MOTL.”
You missed my point.
My point was that the MOTL and MOTR are not rotations, they are orbits.
And I have also pointed out orbits can be other than elliptical paths.
So I do not agree that orbital motion without axial rotation is either the MOTL or the MOTR.
You are not following my thickuments.
A thickument being an argument only thicker, more robust, stronger, and better documented.
bob, you’re just all over the place. You said:
"I DON’T BELIEVE ROTATION ABOUT AN EXTERNAL AXIS WITH NO ROTATION ABOUT AN INTERNAL AXIS IS MOVEMENT AS PER THE MOTR."
Then, later on, you said:
"[QUOTING ME] “Translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis) would be movement like the MOTR. Rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) would be movement like the MOTL.”
[BOB] Nope, both of these examples would be like the MOTR, if the Moon was moving in a circle, but it’s not."
You’re directly contradicting yourself.
Also, we’re not talking about the moon. This entire discussion has been about the tetherball/ball on a string.
Can you please just decide on whether you think "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR.
DREMPTY,
“Can you please just decide on whether you think “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR.”
Neither, because the Moon is not rotating on an external axis.
The Moon only rotates on an internal axis.
The Moon revolves around the Earth, and you should note I am using the terms rotate and revolve to mean different things as Astronomers do.
And remember that astronaut video showing the ball on a string rotating on its axis after he let go of it.
That should have settled the ball on a string argument, but some people are just too dense to see what’s in front of their own eyes.
And remember, your precious gif is not to scale. So it is not clear that the orbit is an ellipse.
DREMPTY,
“Obviously, if you agree that rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is movement as per the MOTL, or the tetherball, you must see that your proof goes poof!”
Obviously I don’t agree that rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is movement as per the MOTL.
So my proof does not go poof.
I have been saying the ball on a string and the Moon are rotating about an internal axis, regardless of how they are moving.
“Neither, because the Moon…”
We’re not talking about the moon, bob. We’re talking about the ball on a string/tetherball, and we’re talking about kinematic terms like “rotation about an external axis” and “translation in a circle”. “Neither” is not an option. Try again.
DREMPTY,
Here is the first post in this sub-thread.
“Sorry Clint,
There are no observed celestial objects that do not spin.
The ball on a string is spinning.
So you have no model of orbiting without spin either.”
This sub-thread is about Astronomy and celestial objects, not kinematics and balls on strings.
Go start you own sub-thread
“Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement as per the MOTL, bob. Not the MOTR. That’s been settled for quite some time.
Either get on board with that, or please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
Except that the Moon has been known to be rotating for over 300 years. It’s been settled for that long.
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
The answer is yes.
Stop being an ass.
bob, the topic of our discussion is not the moon. The topic of our discussion has been the ball on a string/tetherball ever since you mentioned it in the opening comment of this subthread. Regardless of whether or not the moon spins, “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is the correct description for the movement of the ball on a string/tetherball.
[BINNY] The lunar spin deniers can tell on this blog whatever they want: all what they tell is based on guessing, together with what Nikola Tesla wrote in 1919 in a pamphlet, based own his personal views, without any scientific reference to what hundreds of scientists computed centuries ago.
[PUFFMAN] Bindi, if you had a viable model of orbiting without spin, you would not need all that extraneous rambling.
[BOB] There are no observed celestial objects that do not spin.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] bob, the topic of our discussion is not the moon.
Little Willy carefully leaves out:
“The ball on a string is spinning.
So you have no model of orbiting without spin either.”
from bob’s comment…my discussion with bob has been about the ball on a string/tetherball, both here and up-thread. He wants to change the subject because he knows he’s in a pickle.
DREMPTY agrees with my proof that the ball on a string is rotating on it own internal axis.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1663322
Sorry for your loss DREMPTY
The ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis. You were unable to refute my argument with the a) and b) descriptions (in fact, it seems you were unable to understand it), so I remain correct.
DREMPTY,
Here is your statement again.
“The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.”
If the tangential velocities are different, the body is rotating.
Both before and after release, as releasing the string puts no force on the ball, therefore in accordance with Newton’s first law, the ball is spinning before release.
What part of that do you not understand.
I’ll give you this:
You are a better guitarist than you are a scientist.
You have defined orbital motion without axial rotation as the MOTL.
You killed Buzz and Neil.
“If the tangential velocities are different, the body is rotating…”
…but not on its own internal axis, before release.
DREMPTY,
Not true, because the radius of the ball determines the different radial velocities.
bob…how did you grow up not understanding that objects can rotate around other things, and not be spinning themselves!?
You have two choices. Either "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR. It cannot be "neither".
Make up your mind.
DREMPTY,
Yes it can, elliptical orbits are not rotations.
So I am going with neither.
The gif is not to scale.
bob just cannot compute that we’re talking about a ball on a string, and not the moon. Forget about “orbits”, for the moment. It’s just two different types of circular motion. One where the object keeps the same face always oriented towards the central axis of rotation (MOTL) and one where the object keeps the same face always oriented towards the same compass direction (MOTR). So, just as you no doubt accept, without hesitation, that one of these two motions will be translation in a circle (with no rotation about an internal axis), one of them also has to be rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis). Time for you to decide which one that is, bob. You said for years it was the MOTR (you were wrong about that), so maybe it’s time you went for the MOTL?
DREMPTY
“Time for you to decide which one that is, bob. You said for years it was the MOTR (you were wrong about that), so maybe its time you went for the MOTL?”
No, it’s time for you to admit that the Moon rotates on its own internal axis.
bob’s really in a tricky spot here, so we won’t expect anything honest from him.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1663640
Little Willy tries to rescue his hero, and fails.
Whoosh went above his head the point Bob made.
The winningest winner Graham D. Warner declares himself.
What else is new?
It’s all and only about the Moon, which is rotating, try proving me wrong.
Is “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” movement like the MOTL or the MOTR, bob?
Graham D. Warner still has not tried the baseball and basketball experiment.
Hush, Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner is not a Person Number One.
If you say so, Little Willy.
Mike Flynn,
I value Binny’s opinion because he supports it.
The unsupported opinions of sock puppets like you and Puffman are not valued.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy
“I value Binnys opinion because he supports it.”
You value his opinion because he supports his opinion?
You are probably too stupid to realise that all Binnys opinions (plus $5 in cash) would be just sufficient to buy a $5 cup of coffee.
Do you value Binny’s opinion that it is nonsensical to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes surface thermometers hotter? Or is that a valueless opinion – in your worthless opinion, at least?
[chortling just a little]
Mike Flynn,
You sillily ask –
“You value his opinion because he supports his opinion?”
Yes, I do.
Do you have other silly questions like that?
Binny? Also known as “Rose”?
Walter R. Hogle has direct access to Objective Reality, but not people names.
Fancy that.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Do you value Binnys opinion that it is nonsensical to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes surface thermometers hotter? Or is that a valueless opinion in your worthless opinion, at least?
[chortling just a little]
Mike Flynn,
Why are you still asking silly questions I don’t even read?
Silly sock puppet!
Wonky Wee Willy,
Do you value Binnys opinion that it is nonsensical to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes surface thermometers hotter? Or is that a valueless opinion in your worthless opinion, at least?
[chortling just a little]
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Now Binny is ranting about spots on the Moon, not a word of proof that they are moving due to local rotation.
Tesla would have immediately discarded anything from Mayer that suggested a local rotation since his proof negated such a motion.
Binny doesn’t really understand Mayer who talked mainly about libration. Of course, he was saddled with the nonsense from Cassini who claimed the Moon rotated once on a local axis per orbit. Of course, Cassini never proved that, he only claimed it.
> not a word of proof
Step 2 – Sammich Request
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wheres your viable model?
Without something, youve got NOTHING.”
Not really, Newton’s cannonball works just fine. Try it yourself.
https://ionaphysics.org/classroom/Assignments/Newton%27s%20Cannon/index.html
Notice the ball has no rotation at all.
It is simply changing its position in space as a function of time, ie translating, in order to satisfy Newton’s laws.
Tesla did discredit Mayer, and Cassini, and Lagrange, and all others who claimed incorrectly that the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit. He did it using real engineering by applying kinetic energy theory to spheres rotating on spokes.
There is nothing in your 16 points that remotely supports your incorrect argument that the Moon rotates exactly once on it local axis per orbit.
Ironically, the use of kinetic and potential energy in lieu of traditional polar and Cartesian coordinates is the basis of the Lagrangian, an operator developed by Lagrange. Strange that he missed in his own equation what Tesla saw.
However, Tesla did not have to go to such an elegant solution since it is obvious from basic trigonometry and calculus that a body cannot rotate through 360 degrees while keeping the same face pointed at an external axis. Such a condition is plainly curvilinear translation without local rotation.
Ans while we’re at it, I wish you’d refrain from insulting my buddy Clint. It’s OK for fellow skeptics to go at it, but unforgivable for a cretinous alarmists to do the same.
Graham D. Warner carefully leaves out:
[PUFFMAN] The ball on a string is spinning.
“We” are not talking about balls on strings.
Puffman and Graham D. Warner try really really really to make that silly thought experiment relevant in the Moon discussion.
Bob destroyed it anyway, by observing that those who spun the string were wobbling.
The only thing bob destroyed is his own credibility.
In the end, it is gaslighting all the way down for Graham D, Warner.
This is a thread about the motion of the Moon.
That he decided to emphasize the usual sammich request from Puffman is only par for his course.
My credibility is intact.
Even widipedia agrees with me, DREMPTY, why don’t you try to edit the wiki page on the Moon.
See how far you get with that.
Lol, at the response.
Not even going to try DREMPTY?
Try? No, I succeeded at laughing at you.
How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
Posted on April 18, 2024 by curryja | 69 Comments
by Javier Vins
— Conclusions
There are two pieces of good news. The first is that solar activity cannot rise above the 20th century maximum. It is not like CO₂, which can keep going up. The Suns activity can stay high or go down, but it cannot go up, so the warming should not accelerate and should not be dangerous.
In 2016, I developed a model to predict solar activity in the 21st century. At the time, some scientists believed that solar activity would continue to decline until a new grand solar minimum and mini-ice age. But my model predicts that solar activity in the 21st century will be similar to that of the 20th century. It also predicted that the current solar cycle, the 25th, would have more activity than the previous one, and it was right.–
https://judithcurry.com/2024/04/18/how-we-know-that-the-sun-changes-the-climate-part-i-the-past/
I posted this already, in wrong thread.
I think 25 cycle could less than 24.
Sorry for Javier, he is wrong as is his usual state.
The Hertzsprung Russell diagram says that the Sun will increase in activity as it ages and moves along the main sequence.
Over long times frames at least.
Predicting future solar cycle strengths is difficult.
Bodbroege very probably means this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/HR-diag-no-text-3.svg/450px-HR-diag-no-text-3.svg.png
and this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/HR-sparse-de.svg/330px-HR-sparse-de.svg.png
I suppose bob and bindi believe there will be billions and billions of years in the 21st Century.
That kinda indicates their knowledge of science and reality….
The whole takeaway is that Earth’s climate did not always move simultaneously with temperature in the past. That makes curve-fitting CO2 concentration on the temperature record a ridiculous exercise. And trendology in general.
bobdroege and Bindidon share a common “folio a deux”.
Bindidon knows what it means, and bobdroege can look it up.
Mike Flynn,
It’s “folie à deux.”
What are you fantasizing about?
Swenson,
You are trailing Gordon, at least he can correctly make an unsult.
that should be “insult”
Ah, even Willard worked it out. If he can, anybody can.
Bumbling bobby wrote “You are trailing Gordon, at least he can correctly make an unsult.”
If you are trolling, bumbling bobby, you need to check before you post – “unsult”?
How unsulting!
But yes, I made a boo-boo. Bindidon, bobdroege, Willard, and all the fanatical GHE cultists (who believe in something that they cannot describe) share a common delusion.
You never know, someone like Gavin Schmidt might believe he is a climate scientist, or Michael Mann might think he won Nobel Prize. How insane would that be?
Oh, wait! They already have! Reality is only tenuously attached to fanatical GHE believers.
Collective madness, whatever that is in French.
Mike Flynn,
Go ask your granny how to suce des oeufs.
“Go ask your granny how to suce des oeufs.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Go ask your granny how to commenter dans les bonnes enfilades.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy….”Even absolute space needs to be a frame of reference to work”.
***
Here we have a perfect example of how climate alarmists think. Wee willy thinks the universe needs a concept invented by the human mind to exist. Climate alarmists believe the Earth depends on them and that a 1C warming, or even a 5C warming will kill off the human raise and kill the planet.
Wee willy and his brethern believe that imaginary concepts created by the human brain actually affects the physical universe. You can’t get much more stoopid than that.
Completely agreed. Those are physically meaningless numbers. There could be record-breaking warmth one week, and then the rest of the month can be snowy and cold, and it would all just get averaged into a value that never physically represented anything.
The movement of air responsible for forming the pressure systems that bring us our weather doesn’t conform on daily and monthly time scales, so it makes no sense to average them with these intervals. It’s like fitting a square peg into a round hole.
Cranks have direct access to Reality.
Hence why they can deny just about anything.
People usually get out of the magical thinking phase at around 10.
Willard is a monkey.
” get averaged into a value that never physically represented anything.”
Not really, it physically demonstrates that the Earth is warming, and that it has a continuous energy imbalance.
Climate models can be tested with this data.
Of course that is even better demonstrated by measured ocean heat content.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/GRAPHS/heat_content2000m.png
Nate,
You wrote –
“Not really, it physically demonstrates that the Earth is warming, and that it has a continuous energy imbalance..
Except that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. The surface also cools at night.
Continuous energy imbalance – more energy out than in.
You don’t really want to accept reality, do you?
“Except that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. The surface also cools at night.”
Except the Earth warmed since the last glacial maximum, 20,000 years ago.
Except the Earth warmed further in the last century.
Oh damn those inconvenient facts messing up your narrative!
bob d…”The ball on a string is spinning”.
***
The only thing that is spinning is your brain. Perhaps in your state of vertigo everything appears to be spinning, the room included.
Anyone with even a modicum of physics would get it that a spinning ball would wrap itself up in the string. But, that’s the logic climate alarmists bring to the table, that a ball attached to a string under tension can spin.
Gordon,
I know for sure that I have passed more Physics classes than you.
The string is spinning, so anything attached to it is also spinning.
You used an immature insult by the way.
Anyone who has studied physics realizes that a spinning body requires angular momentum about a local axis. That is not possible for the ball when it is being constrained by a string under tension.
BTW…the tension on the string is produced by the ball wanting to keep moving in a straight line. The string has to keep pulling it back into an orbit. How can a ball under such tension (force) possibly rotate about a local axis?
Same for the Moon. If it keeps the same face pointed at its centre of rotation, as does the ball, how can it possibly rotate on a local axis?
Gordon,
The tension on the string is produced by the person holding the string, not by the ball.
The place where the ball meets the string does not face in the same direction all the time, it points north, west, south, and east in turn.
How many times can you face north, west, south, and east in turn, until you fall down from dizziness? If you do that you might realize that you are rotating around your local axis.
The “local” axis moves with the ball.
Watch some NASCAR wrecks, you might find some on youtube.
Bumbling bobby,
The force of gravity keeps the Moon falling towards the Earth. The Moon’s speed maintains its orbit, preventing it from crashing to Earth. It’s actually moving fast enough to be gradually receding from the Earth.
From the Moon, the Earth stays pretty much in the same place, showing the Moon is not rotating with respect to the Earth. As NASA says “Generally, the Earth will not “move across the sky”; it pretty much “stays put” in one location.”
Certainly, this shows that the Moon does not rotate with respect to the Earth, otherwise the Earth would appear to rise and set.
No analogies to argue about. Just facts. If you don’t like them, don’t accept them. You can even believe in the existence oF a GHE – you just can’t describe, can you?
It’s a free world – you can believe anything you like, true or not!
Swenson,
You have several mistakes in your post.
Firstly, the Moon is in free fall, not falling towards the Earth, sometimes, or for half its orbit it is moving towards the Earth and for half its orbit it is moving away from the Earth.
You even contradicted yourself when you said it is slowly moving away from the Earth.
And next, there are places on the Moon where the Earth does indeed rise and set each month, due to libration.
When you say the Moon is not rotating with respect to the Earth, that is true, but with respect to an inertial reference frame, the Moon does indeed rotate, just like Newton said it does.
And yes, I can describe the greenhouse effect for you, the more gases in our atmosphere with three or more atoms, the warmer the surface of the Earth will be.
So go suck some eggs like your granny taught you.
Child bob is only here to obstruct, as he has admitted. Getting the science wrong is part of his act, as he demonstrates above.
Kids these days….
Clint,
Do tell what I have gotten wrong.
Unwrap that physics textbook of yours.
Unfortunately, Clint, you think Newton was wrong.
Wrong child. You have NOTHING to contribute.
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
bob d…”The tension on the string is produced by the person holding the string, not by the ball”.
***
So, if there was no ball attached to the string, and the rotator rotated the string, it would have the same tension as with the ball?
Gordon,
Of course not.
That is something you can even try yourself.
You can twirl a string around in a circle.
But attach a weight, what’s the limit you could swing in a circle?
100 pounds?
more or less?
Clint,
“Wrong child. You have NOTHING to contribute.
Keep proving me right. I can take it.”
You disagree with Newton, I don’t.
I am proving you wrong!
“I am proving you wrong!”
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bob…”the Moon is in free fall, not falling towards the Earth”
***
I don’t like the term free fall. That suggests a mass falling freely through a definite vertical displacement. We don’t even know if the lesser gravitational force at the Moon is capable of accelerating it, even if it as sitting still. I don’t recall Newton’s multiplier but 3600 comes to mid. That’s the amount a resultant acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 is divided by to get the actual acceleration the Earth would produce on the Moon if it was sitting still.
You might want to verify this but it 9.8 m/s^2/3600 = 0.0027 m/s^2. I think he got that number by dividing the distance to the Moon by Earth’s radius. I think he got 60. Distance to Moon = 384,400 km and Earth’s radius = 6371 km. Divide that into the former and get about 60. Inverse square law makes it 60^2, hence 3600 as the divisor to find how much less 9.8 m/s^2 is at the Moon.
Of course 9.8 m/s^2 as a force is 9.8 N/kg. Even though you summed that over the entire mass of the Moon it could produce no more of an acceleration than 0.0027 m/s^2 for the entire mass. But is that enough to move the entire mass of the Moon vertically toward Earth?
We know the Moon’s gravity can do no more than raise the oceans 1 metre at the water apex. It cannot move the earth at all even though theorists talk incorrectly about the Earth and Moon rotating about a barycentre. The only deviation ever measured for the Earth in that respect is about 4 feet due to a slight wobble in its axis.
Earth does have a gravitational effect on the Moon but it a slight deviation of the Moon from its linear path of 5 metres every 8000 metres traveled. Hardly a free fall, more a slight deviation. Don’ forget, the Moon has a huge momentum and would just as son carry on its linear way.
Gordon,
Free fall has a specific definition, you should look it up instead of worrying about what you think it implies.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
You were doing so well, now it’s back to being an ass.
And a tosser.
And a pitcher.
Or are you catching today?
#2
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner yanks Bob’s chain again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard,
That’s interesting.
One should use both pinkies when playing guitar.
The ineffective cyber-bullies start doing their thing.
Bob,
Perhaps you’d prefer Graham D. Warner’s song writing skills:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XT_0sn1Er7Q
Some might argue that he wrote the song for me.
The ineffective cyber-bullying continues…
DREMPTY,
Technical criticism of your guitar technique is not bullying.
One should use ten fingers when playing guitar.
Exceptions being Jerry and Django.
Incorrect, bob.
You are making Curt roll in his grave by playing his song an octave too high.
It’s an octave higher for a reason, bob. Surely you noticed that this allows me to go to the lower notes in the completely alternative riff that I’m playing? That’s not the Come As You Are riff, bob. It’s different. Hence the name of the video.
DREMPTY,
Did you pay Courtney for the rights to publish that song?
Copyright on YouTube is a complicated thing, bob. Can’t really be bothered to explain it to you. Suffice to say, everything’s in order.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting:
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-youtube-what-you-need-to-know#strong-how-do-you-legally-post-cover-songs-on-you-tube-strong
Due to the sheer number of cover songs uploaded to YouTube on a daily basis, in practice YouTube uses some kind of "song recognition" software and as soon as your cover song is uploaded, it is marked as copyright-protected. What happens is that any proceeds (if there were any) would go to the copyright owner for that song.
Basically, it’s not a problem. But, we know what Little Willy and bob are like…
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
The fact that his unpopular video has not been flagged yet does not imply it’s legal.
There’s a shit ton of illegal videos on YT.
Little Willy has no idea how YouTube works, but feels the need to comment about it anyway.
Graham D. Warner, who had no idea about how IPs work until very recently, believes that YT doesn’t rely on copyright claim infringements.
Whatever you say, Little Willy. Everything I say, do, or think is wrong according to you.
Let’s hear what Miley and Melanie have to say:
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=look%20what%20they%27ve%20done%20to%20my%20song&mid=7E0C372F47C13E7F87747E0C372F47C13E7F8774&ajaxhist=0
Hush, child.
klint the klown resurfaces…
“Look at Gordons second sentence, from his last comment: Shula talks at no time about emissivity and theres a reason for that.. You can NOT omit emissivity when talking about EMISSION!”
***
You can ignore emission altogether if you are talking about heat dissipation over a time period in a tiny area like a filament wire. If you have a heated filament wire in a vacuum, the heat from the wire has to go somewhere. It is being generated constantly by electron going through the filament. The heat can’t just remain in the filament, one would think it would increase indefinitely without dissipation. However, the temperature of the filament remains between 50C and 100C.
According to Klint Klown, if the filament is made of a material with low emissivity, the heat would keep building till the filament melted. That is never found in practice. Tungsten changee emissivity with temperature, yet in a vacuum like a vacuum tube device, it is able to dissipate heat adequately to prevent it over-heating.
That makes a lie of the S-B equation where e is offered as a constant, while ignoring temperature. The truth is that e in the S-B equation applies only in the temperature range of 500C to 1500C. I seriously doubt that the electrically-heated platinum filament used by Tyndall as the basis of the original Stefan T^4 relationship would radiate in the same manner at room temperature, or even between the Pirani gaug filament temperaturs of 50C to 100C.
There was no emissivity in the original Stefan equation which was only aconstant of proportionality times T^4. The emissivity nonsense came from Boltzmann and his ijiotic soujourn into probability theory.
Klinton Klown is making way too much out of this S-B argument about emission. We are interested only in the heat dissipation, not the rate of heat dissipation, but the amount over a time period. We are measuring the amount with the current change through the filament due to cooling via radiation in a vacuum.
Me thinks K. Klown doth protest too much.
Gordon clogs the blog as therapy to deal with his mental issues.
It seems to be somewhat working — he hasn’t claimed to be an engineer recently….
Klint Klown…could you make an effort to present some science to go along with your incessant ad homs and insults, I am not only bored with both I am 100% immune to them.
Sorry Gordon, but you’re unable to understand science. You don’t even know what time it is.
You have serious mental issues, which result in you clogging the blog.
Gordon Robertson
Clint R is correct about your understanding of physics. It is none. You just make up your own deluded ideas with zero evidence. You don’t seem to understand any physics either. You do clog the blog a lot with made up nonsense.
You never research to find flaws in your thinking. S-B works at all temperatures and has been tested at lower temperatures. I have linked you to experiments at lower temperatures validating this.
You don’t seem to care about any truth or investigation. You blindly believe the deceiver Shula over looking into things yourself.
You always seem to gravitate to liars and dishonest people as your source. You trust Putin’s complete lies about Ukraine and ignore what he is doing in that Country. You believe Lanka even though others who believe him choose not to vaccinate their children and they end up with measles.
Your sources are really bad. You think textbooks are bad but accept all the liars out there as truth tellers.
Why should S-B work at all temperatures? The experimentation upon which Stefan initial T^4 relation, performed by Tyndall, was in a range from about 500C to 1500C. There was no emissivity factor in that, just temperature, EM emission based on colour temperature, and a proportionality constant. It was Boltzmann who later added the nonsense about emissivity and who added the measure in w/m^2 based on statistical theory.
Re Lanka, I read a debate between him and Peter Duesberg, in which Duesberg defended the existence of the HIV virus. I thought Duesberg lost the debate due to his inability to conclusively prove the virus existed. When Montagnier won the Nobel for so-called discovering HIV, he distanced himself from that claim stating that he ‘inferred’ the virus based on RNA theory. He freely admitted he could not find such a virus on an electron microscope.
Duesberg had claimed HIV as a harmless passenger virus, meaning it was there simply for the ride. However, he remained firm in his theory that AIDS was caused by drug abuse and homosexuals having multiple partners in a session. Montagnier later agreed, stating that AIDS is caused by oxidative stress due to lifestyle.
Gordon,
“Why should S-B work at all temperatures?”
Because Boltzmann derived it empirically for all temperatures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
It is the Higher Latitudes Temperatures Amplification Phenomenon.
Because the warming is an orbitally forced process.
But there is also the transportation of the accumulated at the equatorial areas heat by winds and oceanic currets towards the globe’s higher latitudes.
–
CO2 is a very insignificant for the global temperatures, because the CO2 is a trace gas and its participation is infinitesimal.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Air masses at the Equator are moving about 200 mph faster than air masses about the Canada-US border. At the same time, air masses of hot air at the Equator are rising, One can only imagine what such a chaotic system can produce. Especially when the air masses moving 200 mph slower are a lot colder.
Yes, and every next year, the same day, Earth is in a different place and is in different orientation vs sun.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
yes…this summer, when the Earth is further along its orbit, it will be pretty hot along the US-Canada border and even hotter on the Equator. Things might be so chaotic that we will have a heat dome parked over Vancouver…again. And again, it will be blamed on a non-existent climate change.
The complete dataset is published, but the link for the lowerstratosphere points to the file for the tropopause. Hopefully fixed tomorrow?
OK, I’ll take a look, thanks.
Håkan Bergman
Do you mean this file?
https://tinyurl.com/UAH-LS-zones
It contains the same data as what I downloaded last month (except March of course).
Yes that’s the one, it’s just the downloadlink that points to the tropopausefile instead.
Whenever you want UTF8 chars to be visible on this site, use
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
like for
https://mothereff.in/html-entities#H%C3%A5kan
As IFT-4 prepares for launch, Starships future is coming into focus
written by Justin Davenport April 19, 2024
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/04/ift-4-prepares-starships-future-focus/
linked from: https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/update-on-spacexs-preparations-for-the-4th-test-flight-of-superheavy-starship/
How far we’ve come. We broaden conservative to Elon Musk.
And:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFPfG413F58
Where Are All The Aliens? We Ranked Every Explanation
This is NASA 2024
https://youtu.be/rl2Wxdgaa_Q
The farside of Moon is Not always in dark. The south pole is mostly always in dark, but has small parts of it, which can have more than 1/2 of time in sunlight {up to 85% of time in sunlight}.
Because there is area always in dark, they could be areas with mineable H20 [and stuff like frozen CO2- which makes water more “mineable”. Also south pole can always face Earth for direct communication with Earth. It’s about topography and South pole has huge crater {and lots of other craters].
gb…that’s likely because the lunar orbit is inclined about 5 degrees to the Ecliptic (Earth’s orbital plane). There is a slight libration produced latitudinally (credit to Dremt) due to that incline, so solar radiation could get around the polar region at times.
The fact that the dark side is always dark wrt the Earth proves the Moon is not rotating on a local axis, However, the dark side is a misnomer since the Sun illuminates it during half the lunar orbit. When we can see the Moon, the dark side is truly dark but when we cannot see the Moon, the so-called dark side is fully illuminated.
“When we can see the Moon, the dark side is truly dark but when we cannot see the Moon, the so-called dark side is fully illuminated.”
When our Moon is a full moon. Lunar midnight is on opposite side of the Moon {the farside}. When Moon is New, Lunar noon is on opposite side of the Moon {the farside}. And it is midnight at center of New Moon [on Nearside}.
But permanent darkness on Moon is about the topography on lunar surface. You have craters in which sunlight doesn’t reach because of low angle of sunlight at either of the lunar polar region.
In terms of southern lunar polar region, it has very old and very large impact crater:
South PoleAitken basin:
“At roughly 2,500 km (1,600 mi) in diameter and between 6.2 and 8.2 km (3.95.1 mi) deep, it is one of the largest known impact craters in the Solar System. It is the largest, oldest, and deepest basin recognized on the Moon.” And:
“The outer rim of this basin can be seen from Earth as a huge mountain chain located on the Moon’s southern limb, sometimes informally called “Leibnitz mountains”. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole%E2%80%93Aitken_basin
So, it’s crater on farside, but the “Leibnitz mountains” which reaches into nearside {can be seen from Earth [and you can see Earth from these mountains]}.
The Chinese went to Aitken basin but on farside and at 45.444S 177.599E
Which is like going the Canadian border and calling it a polar region- or crater is big and the Moon is a bit on the smallish end of things.
Solar wind
speed: 512.9 km/sec
density: 0.15 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 21 Apr 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 240
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 210 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.21×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.3% Low
So if average sunspot number for rest of month averages about 150, then month will be about 125 sunspot. Though if continues +200 sunspots it will of course be higher.
If around 125, it’s not going to be close to crossing red curve line, but blue line should continue to drop.
Solar wind
speed: 412.0 km/sec
density: 0.57 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 22 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 283
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 217 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.32×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.3% Low
17 numbered sunspots. 1 is leaving. No spots are coming from farside.
–.
What is your obsession with crossing the red line?
It is only a prediction, and the only reason it is even possible to cross it is that they appear to have got the prediction of the TIMING of the peak very wrong.–
I am not sure, they were trying to predict the peak, but they might of thought it was going to like cycle 24.
Or the prediction was not return to grand solar max type cycle- and why I say, they were mostly right.
They have a later prediction, and have a day with 283 sunspot, is in line with that prediction. But I think that prediction is wrong, but it’s not wrong, yet.
In terms of my obsession, I thought it would cross the red line, and I wonder when it could first do this. And I had thought the answer to it, was that first it could happened, was Nov 2023.
And it kind of happenned sooner, in Oct 2023, but it didn’t cross the red line. So, I been continuing to wonder when it will. It seems April 2025, might do it. Mainly because I thought the same “big spot” wouldn’t return, but it did, and having having even higher numbers. Yet they not big, just a lot of them {mostly}.
But my most recent guess is related to what Bindidon posted, And I said within 6 months “both” flat and thin line would cross.
Solar wind
speed: 361.6 km/sec
density: 0.34 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 23 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 283
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 227 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.81×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.9% Low
48-hr change: -0.6%
17 sunspots. 1 left, and 1 numbered [3657]. No leaving in a day, none coming from farside.
Solar wind
speed: 380.7 km/sec
density: 0.34 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 25 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 283
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 199 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.97×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.5% Low
16 numbered spots. No spots are probably going to farside. No spot coming from farside. In 2 days or more, a lot spots leaving to farside.
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
22 April – 18 May 2024
Solar activity is expected to be moderate levels
(R1-R2/Minor-Moderate), with a chance for X-class flare R3 (Strong),
over 22-27 Apr due to a plethora of productive sunspots rotating
towards the W limb. As those spots groups rotate off, solar activity
is likely to be a low levels with a chance for M-class (R1-R2),
through the remainder of the outlook period due to both developing
spots in the E hemisphere and the return of productive spot groups
on the farside of the Sun.
There is a chance for the greater than 10 MeV proton flux at
geosynchronous orbit to reach above the S1 (Minor) levels over 22-27
Apr due to the plethora of sunspots in the W hemisphere.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit may
reach high levels on 22-25 Apr in response to geomagnetic activity
observed on 19 Apr.
Geomagnetic field activity is like to reach active levels over 22-24
Apr and 26-27 Apr in response to multiple coronal hole high speed
streams (CH HSSs). There is potential for combined influence of
coronal hole activity and multiple weak transients over 22-24 Apr.
Unsettled levels are likely on 25 Apr, 01-03 May, and 05-07 May due
to the anticipated return of multiple other weak CH HSSs. The
remainder of the outlook period is likely to be at mostly quiet
levels. —
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
What is your obsession with “crossing the red line”?
It is only a prediction, and the only reason it is even possible to cross it is that they appear to have got the prediction of the TIMING of the peak very wrong.
If it can manage to average 175 for the rest of the month then the 13-month average will rise. Don’t know what the count will be today (the 23rd), but the flux continued to rise this morning so it should remain over 200. I wonder if 300 is a possibility.
Interesting to follow, but it won’t make any noticeable difference to the climate.
(Mr Spencer:
There is no need to approve my first attempt at this comment with the wrong email address.)
.
.
.
What is your obsession with “crossing the red line”?
It is only a prediction, and the only reason it is even possible to cross it is that they appear to have got the prediction of the TIMING of the peak very wrong.
If it can manage to average 175 for the rest of the month then the 13-month average will rise. Don’t know what the count will be today (the 23rd), but the flux continued to rise this morning so it should remain over 200. I wonder if 300 is a possibility.
Interesting to follow, but it won’t make any noticeable difference to the climate.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Once more, a bunch of lies at WUWT
Climate Change Weekly #503: Official Temperature Data Isn’t ‘Data’ At All
H. Sterling Burnett
Heartland service boy:
https://heartlanddailynews.com/author/sburnett/
2024 April 20
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/20/climate-change-weekly-503-official-temperature-data-isnt-data-at-all/
One of them:
” Even while claiming no harm, no foul, the government shuttered some of the most egregiously sited stations highlighted in Watts report, and established an alternative temperature network, consisting only of unbiased stations, the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), consisting of new stations with state-of-the-art equipment sited in locations unlikely to ever be impacted by the UHI.
The temperature data set from the USCRN, for anyone who cares, displays about half the warming and a slower rate of warming than the broader U.S. Historical Climate Network (USHCN) used by the government in its official reports claiming unprecedented warming. ”
This is a dumb lie, as can be shown by comparison of USHCN with USCRN during USCRN’s lifetime:
– 947 (of the 1218) USHCN stations
with
– 113 (of the 114) USCRN stations
which provided sufficient data for anomaly construction wrt the reference period 2011-2020:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18Qax55dStHXt_t-v4Lk0fGb2Nyb0mp5q/view
Trends for 2005-2023, in C / decade
– USHCN: 0.38 +- 0.11
– USCRN: 0.36 +- 0.11
Caution: with ‘USCRN’ I don’t mean NOAA’s USCRN time series shown in the ‘National Temperature Index’ (NTI) web page. I mean the original, 100% raw USCRN hourly dataset.
The USCRN ‘NTI’ variant has been enhanced with nearby GHCN daily station data allowing for inter-record comparison and hence the generation of USCRN anomalies wrt 1991-2020 (USCRN started in 2001, with sufficient station set by 2005).
The two USCRN variants also don’t differ by much, however:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AeLYAmOHb65UxB862q4wD3uClUh0IdBy/view
Trends for 2005-2023, in C / decade
– USCRN (raw): 0.36 +- 0.11
– USCRN (NTI): 0.35 +- 0.13
*
Anyway, the info provided by the ‘Heartland Institude’ is even more deprecated than the USHCN record itself, which has been replaced by the nClimDiv’ record (consisting of the data of thousands of GHCN daily stations).
Here is a comparison of USCRN (NTI) with nClimDiv:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S0jop5NMZ0z6RWxOjJt8BqfOIdWJdvoI/view
Trends for 2005-2023, in C / decade
– nClimDiv: 0.28 +- 0.13
– USCRN (NTI): 0.35 +- 0.13
Sources
NTI data
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0/data.csv
Raw USCRN hourly data
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
USHCN data
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/
GHCN daily data
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
The polynomial reveals just a ~5 year cycle; no overall change.
And the negative anomalies in CRN are noticeably colder compared to the original network.
Your two variants actually.
No overall change, Hogle, of course!
Like here, for example:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q1nAZRyAgkgmwkGCJAbwGGXzB_AAwf22/view
*
The polynomials are by the way of few help in detecting changes, and are used in my charts mostly to show similarities, e.g. between
– the raw USCRN
– the NTI USCRN enhanced with GHCN daily stations around the raw USCRN
– the USHCN data
– the nClimDiv data.
Amazing similarities, which let appear your blah blah posted upthread:
” 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 stations 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. ”
as what it is: the credulous, unscientific parroting of Heartland propaganda at WUWT.
If at least you were able to compute uncertainties in time series, that would let you appear a bit more credible than WUWT’s uncertainty mafia, a bunch of boasters who ask everyday for uncertainties but never were able to present themselves what they expect from others.
Anomalies correlate with time. Both network’s methodologies is the same: max+min/2; that’s likely why your graphs are so close. That doesn’t stand up on much because temperature has no relationship with time.
Anomalies don’t tell anything about the quality of data; they’re just deviations from a baseline. Anthony Watts showed us that the stations in CO-OP are 96% corrupted by artificial encroaches; we know actual temperatures, rather than anomalies, are affected, specifically nighttime temperatures. That shows how unhelpful anomalies are: they don’t even represent the conditions of the real world.
> Anomalies correlate with time.
Walter R. Hogle likes to say stuff that sounds profound, but doesn’t mean anything.
Below, you’ll find three links. The first link is a plot of maximum readings over an 8-month period. The second link is a plot of minimum readings over the same 8-month period, and the third is a plot of daily averages over the same 8-month period.
This data is generated from 3 stations within a 1000 km radius. Series 1 is a station compromised by sitting issues/UHI. Its impact on the readings is evident in link #2 (minimums) as it consistently reads higher than the other 2 series. Despite that, link #3 shows the daily average over the 8-month period tracking each other much more closely. This is due to time.
The averages, for the most part, overlap each other, so it makes sense that when you assign a zero for each respective station and then average them together, you form a common baseline.
The fact that the average temperatures overlap each other despite differences in elevation, topography, microclimate, etc., just shows how limited their use is. The change of temperature in latitude is an important detail to know and to be able to accurately discern.
(1): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XUIxxljqMis7rCx5xsarxAhVgk6MjWeknVbZTYbSYHs/edit?usp=share_link
(2):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qHJr6RKi6WIi95trSHtdQ4lVOjZCuwlXb7tX8IneimY/edit?usp=share_link
(3):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hvD5mrIZg8TRSYf3NlV5PJdMyCFMWWcU2q43C4OT_Yc/edit?usp=share_link
One might as well argue that time series correlate with time.
As the graphs illustrate, the temperatures and averages simply follow the general weather pattern, regardless of UHI or any other biases. However, the temperature distributions, and consequently averages for the three different stations, often overlap, despite differences in elevation, longitude, and latitude. This reflects both natural variability and the measurement process.
The problem arises when you apply uncertainty analysis to each individual data point (the uncertainty of the averages) and test it against the time series trend. This reveals a broad range of trends, including negative ones.
Binny is a monkey. He barely investigated this; he just stopped at the surface and didn’t go much further .
Walter R. Hogle discovers weather.
Under that trench-coat, there is at least one Very Intelligent kid.
I am Mr. Monkey to you.
Hogle
As usual, you are merely talking about… weather in a tiny 8 month period which might be of interest to you.
On this blog, Roy Spencer discusses climate over decades, and so do I.
I’ll respond to your repeatedly superficial blah blah about anomalies (and the 96% encroaching nonsense from Heartland Senior Consultant Watts that you so credulously swallowed) at the end of the thread.
No. You did not understand my point, as usual.
Hogle
” Anomalies correlate with time. Both networks methodologies is the same: max+min/2; thats likely why your graphs are so close. That doesnt stand up on much because temperature has no relationship with time. ”
This is one of the most incompetent statements I have ever read, which by the way proves your lack of technical skills and scientific education: a person writing such a nonsense for sure never heard of what is named ‘auto-correlation’ in time series, which statisticians of course use to account for.
The contrary of your gut feeling based blah blah is the case, Hogle: due to the fact that anomalies are deseasonalized, their ‘correlation with time’ is weaker than that of the absolute temperatures which still contain the annual cycle.
*
” The problem arises when you apply uncertainty analysis to each individual data point (the uncertainty of the averages) and test it against the time series trend. This reveals a broad range of trends, including negative ones. ”
*
I repeat: you are one more of these uncertainty mafia boys who always talk about ‘apply[ing] uncertainty’ but never do it themselves.
*
” Binny is a monkey. He barely investigated this; he just stopped at the surface and didnt go much further . ”
Finally, everybody who doesn’t buy your superficial analysis ‘method’s is automatically a ‘monkey’: that tells us everything about how you tick.
Knowledgeable people don’t feel the need to insult others.
Hogle (1)
” The fact that the average temperatures overlap each other despite differences in elevation, topography, micro-climate, etc., just shows how limited their use is. The change of temperature in latitude is an important detail to know and to be able to accurately discern. ”
” Binny is a monkey. He barely investigated this; he just stopped at the surface and didn’t go much further . ”
*
Yeah. Says senior temperature data analysis specialist Hogle, who thinks it’s enough to consider 3 stations over 8 months…
*
Here is a TMIN/TAVG/TMAX comparison set for two completely different time series about CONUS (GHCN daily’s raw data vs. NOAA’s adjusted Climate at a Glance):
– monthly series
– winter (DJF) and summer (JJA) separations
https://tinyurl.com/GHCN-daily-vs-CaaG
Hogle (2)
Come back to us, Hogle, when you’ll have finally understood how useless your tiny observations are, and managed to extend your jobs to more meaningful contexts – like these shown by UAH.
*
What’s so pathe~tic about people like you is that while
– you endlessly concentrate on tiniest comparisons of surface data, and dare to rant against both their averages and anomalies over time and space
– you nevertheless recently had no problem at all to use UAH’s similarly 100% averaged, 100% anomaly based satellite data over the Arctic region for your gut feeling based analysis of climate patterns.
That is of incredible incompetence and dishônesty.
These averages are converted to a monthly average, which then becomes a deviation from a baseline used from each station’s own data. That’s why anomalies correlate within 1000 km.
The temperature distribution during that 8-month period using 3 stations was a simple exercise, merely intending to show you that even with the UHI bias, the average will still follow along the general weather pattern.
No amount of error is going to prevent each reading from following the general weather patterns. That’s why your graphs (CRN, nClimDiv, UAH) are so similar, but can still be corrupted with error. They’re each reporting their respective anomaly at the end of the month and average these results for a yearly anomaly.
Your replies just show you continue to miss the mark.
And for the record, you insulted me first. Knowledgeable people don’t feel the need to insult others, huh?
That’s what I thought.
bitch ass mf
The cult is not able to supply a viable definition/description of the GHE. Swenson has repeatedly asked for one. But none has been supplied.
Above, cult child bob attempts one: “And yes, I can describe the greenhouse effect for you, the more gases in our atmosphere with three or more atoms, the warmer the surface of the Earth will be.”
That ain’t viable!
Poor bob is merely regurgitating his cult’s nonsense, without understanding how stoopid it is. If all molecules with “three or more atoms” could supply meaningful energy to the system, we’d be in trouble! Even strawberries and bananas would be “heating the planet”. bob just continues to display his ignorance of the relevant physics.
Even worse, he can’t learn….
Poor Clint doesn’t know the difference between solids and gases.
Gas molecules can’t produce meaningful energy either.
A room full of air at 70°F does not increase in temperature by adding CO2 also at 70°F, if pressure is maintained constant.
What will bob try next?
Clint also doesn’t understand the atmosphere is much bigger than a room.
Child bob doesn’t realize that the room could be as big as Earth. CO2 adds no meaningful energy to the system.
What will he try next?
Clint,
Is the room as big as the Earth heated by the Sun.
Rooms by definition are closed at the top.
Now bob is bringing in solar, as in “It’s the Sun, stoopid”!
Like a fish out of water, sometimes he flops in the right direction….
Clint shows just how out of touch he is with respect to the greenhouse effect.
Would that be the “greenhouse effect” which has no viable description/definition?
Sorry Clint, I am not familiar with any greenhouse effect that doesn’t have a viable description or definition.
Once again, bob goes full circle. He tried to pass off an invalid description/definition of the bogus GHE, only to end up needing Sun.
Nothing has worked for him, so he just clings to his cult beliefs, unable to provide any science.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clints bogus science includes but is not limited to:
1) Gas molecules in the atmosphere are a source of energy.
2) The atmosphere is a room.
3) Solids are part of the bogus greenhouse effect.
4) 15 micron photons can’t transfer energy.
I could go on.
bob is unable to provide a viable description/definition of the bogus GHE, so he resorts to his cult tactics.
Clint,
You got nothing.
And you are lacking in physics education, so listen to your betters.
The atmosphere has a rule: no molecules with three or more atoms allowed.
I break that rule every time I exhale or fart.
He Bob, why don’t you have a real long one of those and we’ll pick up your clothes when you’re finished?
Gordon,
There are a bunch of different gases in the atmosphere that have 3 or more atoms.
Clint asserts: “That aint viable!”
There is a popular quote from Richard Feynman:
“Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.”
Those who know the tapestry know that Bob’s description is perfectly viable.
3+ atoms –> ability to absorb thermal IR.
those molecules in the atmosphere –> less thermal IR from surface to space.
less IR from surface to space –> warmer surface.
It is a simple, elegant, powerful synopsis of the GHE. Only one poorly trained in physics would think the molecules have to ‘supply energy to the system’ or that bananas float around in the atmosphere.
Yes Folkerts. You also believe radiative fluxes simply add and ice can boil water.
Believes ain’t science…or reality.
“You also believe radiative fluxes simply add and ice can boil water.”
Irradiances simply add, but radiant exitances don’t. Ice cannot boil water. Get it right in the future.
Folkerts, your own example results in ice being able to boil water.
You can’t even understand your own nonsense.
Even worse, you can’t learn.
“Folkerts, your own example results in ice being able to boil water.”
No — only in your confused mind.
Worse, you refused to listen or learn. You could read what I actually write. You could read actual textbooks on the subject. Instead, you repeat ad nauseum your same wrong conclusions.
Clint,
By the way, I made up that sentence all by myself without any help from Gavin, Judy, the Rabbet, Micheal Mann or any of the other proponents of the Greenhouse Effect.
You’re such a good cultist. Thoy would be proud of you.
Clint makes up a new pronoun.
He can’t help it because he doesn’t understand the greenhouse effect.
He doesn’t realize the Sun is part of it.
bob, you were invited to provide a viable description/definition of the bogus GHE, but you couldn’t. You had to keep revising, as reality closed in.
You’re welcome to try again….
Clint
You just calling it bogus means I am over the target and causing great damage.
Your fallacy is called confirming the antecedent.
You will call any explanation I provide bogus, no matter what.
Explain the big notch in the out-going infrared spectrum from the Earth.
bob can’t provide a viable description/definition of the bogus GHE, even given multiple chances.
That’s because the bogus GHE ain’t science.
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Clint,
Quid pro quo, do you remember Silence of the Lambs?
If you revolve a baseball around a basketball three times keeping one face of the baseball towards the basketball and not changing your grip on the baseball,
I’ll provide you an extensive description of the greenhouse effect.
bob, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner returns to his old ways.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
We have our planet Earth and our Moon orbiting sun.
Earth receives per square metre 28% less solar energy than Moon because of Earth’s higher than Moon’s Albedo (0,306 vs 011).
Yet Earth is on average +68C warmer than Moon.
It looks like a scientific paradox, since Earth’s atmosphere is thin and doesn’t support on average surface the +68C difference.
There is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which explains the difference of +68C between our Moon and our planet Earth.
We have consolidated that difference – it is not a scientific paradox any more.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos….I agree with you but the main problem seems to be that the Earth rotate once every 24 hours and the Moon does not rotate at all. The paradox in its temperature extremes is due to the fact that the Moon, due to its orbit, faces the Sun directly for 14 days then the same face points away from the Sun to cold space for the other 14 days.
However, one side of the Moon is being heated directly all of the time. However, the side away from the Sun freezes. Therefore the average temperature ranges from +130C in direct sunlight down to -170C when pointed away from the Sun.
The wonder to me is that the cold side does not go even lower toward absolute zero. To me that is a testament to heat retention or some kind of internal heating mechanism. Of course, the Moon is subjected to the solar wind even where pointed away from the Sun.
It’s also a testament to the ineffective dissipation of heat by radiation alone. The dark side does not appear to cool as it should because radiation cannot effectively dissipate the heating when that side was at +130C.
Same with Earth. The heated side warms much faster than the colder (unlit) side can cool.
Thank you, Gordon, for your response.
“one side of the Moon is being heated directly all of the time. However, the side away from the Sun freezes. Therefore the average temperature ranges from +130C in direct sunlight down to -170C when pointed away from the Sun.”
Mercury Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
Surface temp. min mean max
0N, 0W [14] −173 C 67 C 427 C
We observe Mercury having the same minimum temperature as Moon,
Mercury has a similar to Moon Albedo (0.068 vs 0.11)
nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/
Mercury Solar irradiance (W/m^2)…9082.7
Moon 1361.0…..so on Mercury it is 6.674 stronger.
Length of day (hours) Mercury…4222.6
Moon…708.7
The length of day on Mercury is 5.95 times longer
–
So, Mercury has the same minimum temperature on its dark side as our Moon ~ 100K, Moon has 6.674 times less solar irradiance per square metre, but Moon has 5.95 times shorter diurnal cycle.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Also, Mercury has surface of basalt, average specific heat
cp = 0,18 cal/gr*oC
Moon – regolith, cp = 0,19 cal/gr*oC
–
The average surface specific heat for both – Mercury and Moon are almost the same.
They have the same dark side minimum temperature ~ 100K.
–
Since the solar flux is on Mercury 6.674 stronger.
And The length of day on Mercury is 5.95 times longer, which means the The length of night on Mercury is 5.95 times longer.
–
We observe here a quasi-linear relation..
So the rate of cooling is obviously determined by the accumulated heat conduction to the surface layer process. And then, from the surface layer, it is dissipated as IR EM energy to outer space.
And it is obvious, the IR EM energy leaves surface with some other, than S-B equation, some different mechanism, because the heat conduction process rate towards the surface layer is what determines the dissipation (IR emission) of the accumulated during the solar lit hours solar energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bob Droege…re free fall. From Britannica …”state of a body that moves freely in any manner in the presence of gravity”.
***
That definition contradicts the meaning of the words free and fall. Not only that, gravity can only apply a vertical force or a vertical component of force. If the body is moving in any manner, as they claim, there has to be other forces involved.
It’s clear that fall implies moving from a higher altitude to a lower altitude while free indicates there is nothing impeding the fall. If a person is falling in a parachute, he/she is falling but not freely. And at a certain speed, the pressure exerted upwardly by air prevents free falling to the point the body can move no faster than about 120 mph.
I am sure that is no comfort to anyone enduring such a horror show but people have survived falling from an aircraft when they landed in a mountain side of deep snow. Wouldn’t it choke you up if you survive the fall and died in an avalanche it produced.
That is not happening with the Moon. At no time is it changing altitude, as in a fall, because it would continually lose altitude hence could not remain in an orbit. It’s mean distance does vary from the Earth but that is due to other factors, namely a variation in Earth’s gravitational force.
The truth is, the Moon is moving with a constant linear momentum and Earth’s gravitational field manages to displace it from its path by 5 metres every 8000 metres. That constant deviation is just enough to keep the Moon following the curvature of the Earth. I would hardly call that falling, never mind free falling (Tom Petty), I call it a constantly induced deviation.
Gordon,
You are full of it.
The Moon does not follow the curvature of the Earth.
Go find an introductory Astronomy course, I’ll set up a go fund me to help you pay for it.
Just kidding, pay for your own education, you obviously need it.
Which planet’s curvature do you think it’s following, or any of those satellite we launched?
“gravity can only apply a vertical force or a vertical component of force. If the body is moving in any manner, as they claim, there has to be other forces involved”
Oh really? So a projectile moving in a parabolic trajectory on a planet with no atmosphere must be acted on by a force other than gravity because it is not moving vertically downwards, is that right Gordon?
The projectile has a linear momentum, Ant.
(We see another example of the cultists with no knowledge of the relevant physics!)
Gordon,
“Which planets curvature do you think its following, or any of those satellite we launched?”
It’s not following any planets curvature.
The Moon does not maintain a constant altitude.
You don’t understand and I don’t care.
cLInt
Where did I say anything that remotely attempts to claim that the projectile doesn’t have a linear momentum??
ant…”So a projectile moving in a parabolic trajectory on a planet with no atmosphere must be acted on by a force other than gravity because it is not moving vertically downwards, is that right Gordon?”
***
Not sure the trajectory would be parabolic without air resistance acting on the projectile. Anyway, without air resistance, the full force of gravity would be acting on the projectile. However, that f = mg is acting in conjunction with the projectile’s momentum to produce a resultant trajectory.
The greater the momentum, the farther the projectile will go before touching down. Newton reasoned that a momentum great enough, if it exceeded the curvature of the Earth, could cause the ball to orbit indefinitely. Of course other parameters would have to come into play.
However, that’s what the Moon is doing but its doing it with a small fraction of the 9.8 m/s^2 the cannon ball would experience. If you have masses going into orbit like that, it is obvious their momentum has far more effect than gravity, and although gravity is acting straight down (vertically) it is over-ridden by the mass momentum.
If the Moon was to move vertically in succeeding orbits, it would lose orbit. That’s why I claim gravity acts only to deviate the Moon from its linear path and any vertical deviation is not an acceleration, but merely a re-directions of the lunar velocity vector.
Read it and weep, child:
“So a projectile moving in a parabolic trajectory on a planet with no atmosphere must be acted on by a force other than gravity because it is not moving vertically downwards”
Jeez, that’s like the first problem in the first problem set in the first physics class one can take.
Yes Clint, that is what I wrote.
Why did you omit the “is that right, Gordon – QUESTION MARK”?
It was not a claim by me. It was my statement of what Gordon was essentially saying.
You couldn’t lie straight in bed.
In any case, there was no denial of linear momentum, even by Gordon.
“Not sure the trajectory would be parabolic without air resistance acting on the projectile.”
Have you ever studied basic physics? If you had, you would never have come up with such a ridiculous statement. Provided the distance travelled and the altitude reached are insignificant compared to the radius of the earth, the trajectory is essentially parabolic.
But if you want to get technical (and I KNOW you weren’t thinking of this), the trajectory is actually an elliptical arc, due to the changing direction of gravity as it moves around the earth’s surface. Or a hyperbolic arc if the initial speed is great enough.
In either case, NO, the projectile CANNOT become a satellite without intervention. In the hyperbolic case it will leave the earth’s orbit. In the elliptical case, it will crash into the earth when it reaches the same point on the ellipse on the other side of the major axis.
Air resistance might allow it to become a satellite – not sure about that. Otherwise it needs intervention – that is, rockets firing to alter the trajectory. But we are talking of a “projectile”, so rockets are not to be considered.
.
.
.
“Newton reasoned that a momentum great enough, if it exceeded the curvature of the Earth …”
Apparently you believe that “momentum” and “the curvature of the earth” are like quantities which can be compared. Seriously … what a nonsense statement.
Ant, you didn’t understand and now you won’t admit it.
Your inability to learn is not my problem.
So tell me cLInt, how do YOU interpret:
“OH REALLY? So a projectile moving in a parabolic trajectory on a planet with no atmosphere must be acted on by a force other than gravity because it is not moving vertically downwards, IS THAT RIGHT GORDON?”
What does “oh really” signify to you?
How about “is that right Gordon?”?
If I said
“Oh really? So A is B, is that right, Clint?”
did I just claim that A is B?
As usual when you are caught out you have nothing left but “you don’t understand”.
A,
You wrote –
“In either case, NO, the projectile CANNOT become a satellite without intervention.”
According to Isaac Newton, that’s exactly what happens. Anybody interested can look up “Newton’s cannonball”.
I prefer to believe Newton, unless you can demonstrate why I shouldn’t.
Flynn
Newton’s cannonball:
“Newton visualizes a stone being projected FROM THE TOP OF A HIGH MOUNTAIN”.
And the cannonball is fired HORIZONTALLY.
Did you pretend not to know this, or did you stop googling as soon as you THOUGHT you had your answer?
The theoretical cannonball actually clips the launch point at the top of the mountain on the way past. Launch it instead at a small angle above the horizontal, and it ploughs into the side of the mountain.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
swannie emerges from his coal cellar to protest…
“Gordos error is that any other reference frame should actually read: any other INERTIAL reference frame. Thats basic Engineering Dynamics 101. A bodys rotation must be measured against an inertial reference frame, just like its velocity must also be measured”.
***
Would you not consider it odd then, that not once in our engineering problems sets were we ever required to state a frame of reference. No one gives a hoot about them in engineering unless you are dealing with relative motion. Even at that, we solved a lot of it using vectors.
Reference frames should be left to Arts fairies, or theoretical physicists (same thing), who insist on filling our mental spaces with tommyrot. Some are hypothesizing that the universe is actually a hologram, which would make the rest of us like The Doctor on Star Trek, an emergency medical hologram who can be turned on and off as well as programmed.
Reference frames are products of the human mind, as is time, and although they have their values in appropriate situations, in large, they are nothing but figments of the human imagination.
People like Swannie, like to use them as weapons, throwing them in here and there to lead a debate into a netherworld where they can maintain some form of significance.
Gordo pontificated again:
That’s because most engineers don’t need to think “outside the box”. That’s mostly left to the aero and astro engineers, (i.e., the “rocket scientists”) and military folks shooting artillery. BTW, your vectors must first be mathematically defined wrt some specified coordinate system, they don’t exist otherwise.
Gordo never learns.
That’s true, a reference frame is implied when one uses a free body diagram, as one encounters in an engineering problem set.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_body_diagram
Yes, Gordo and the rest of the No Spin Cult need to be reminded (again) about Classical Mechanics, especially the section on Frames of Reference.
Not that The Cult will change their claims about the Moon’s rotation.
Sure, an ECI reference frame is used. Look it up, if you need to.
Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
“Sure, an ECI reference frame is used.”
Obviously not, as you guys define SPIN as rotation relative to a Earth-centered rotating reference frame, as both Clint and you admitted.
You try to rationalize it away. But it remains how you define it.
Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
I’m content that I’ve made enough complex explanations of why reference frames do not resolve the moon issue over the last few years that what I’m saying in no way constitutes "pure denial".
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
Yes, correct stuff.
I used to hang onto every word quoted by Feynman till I began to realize he had a monstrous ego and only talked at times to embellish his ego.
The last straw for me was when he gave a lecture in Auckland and announced to the audience, essentially, that they were too stoopid to understand his theories therefore they’d have to take his word for it. He went so far as to claim that if you think you understand, you are wrong.
So, I am asking, what good is a science like quantum electrodynamics, or advanced quantum theory, when no one, including Feynman, can figure out what is going on, at least enough to explain it clearly to a layman?
Schrodinger and Einstein bailed on both and physicist David Bohm, considered an expert on quantum theory, admitted that both quantum mechanic and Newtonian mechanics have reached the ends of their respective roads, and that we’ll need to back up and go in another direction.
sorry…the above is a reply to Tim Folkerts above at April 22, 2024 at 6:00 PM..I had to edit a banned word and lost my place.
Mr. Asshat lost his place long before that.
I’d say before the engineering classes he never took.
I believe he took the classes. I just don’t believe he understood them. Just like most people who don’t understand, he invents his own explanations and connections. I recall a conversation where he showed that either he was not aware of the coexistence of the time domain and the frequency domain and their interchangeability or, more likely, he had written one of them off (I can’t recall which one) because he didn’t understand it. Just as he writes off relativity because he doesn’t understand it.
Neither domain exists except as thought processes in human minds. I have never denied either as a thought process.
You need to distinguish between what’s out there in the real physical world and the interpretation we retain in our minds of what we think is out there. Einstein went so far as to define time as the ‘hands on a clock’ without actually checking to see if there was something real out there called time.
Einstein made no such definition of time. He said:
“It might seem that all difficulties involved in the definition of ‘time’ could be overcome by my substituting ‘position of the small hand of my clock’ for ‘time’. Such a definition is indeed sufficient if time has to be defined exclusively for the place at which the clock is located; but the definition becomes insufficient as soon as series of events occurring at different locations have to be linked temporally, or – what amounts to the same – events occurring at places remote from the clock have to be evaluated temporally.”
He literally says that such a definition is insufficient.
He makes it clear that ‘time’ is a measure of the simultaneity or lack thereof of two events, and uses a clock only in this light.
.
.
.
And re time domain vs frequency domain (I can’t recall which way round this went), I explained something with respect to one of those domains, and you told me that was totally incorrect and proceeded to “correct” me by explaining it in terms of the other domain.
You seem to have a very rigid and highly limiting understanding of what it means to exist.
ark…”He makes it clear that time is a measure of the simultaneity or lack thereof of two events, and uses a clock only in this light”.
***
The point is, there is nothing to be measured re time. An interval is an empty space and we humans defined it based on our invention of time. This is akin to holes in semiconductor current. A hole is an empty space, it has no charge and neither does such an empty space in a semiconductor current.
Many units of time have passed since either of us was born, and if time exists, it should be a medium we moved through. Therefore, we should be able to move back through it, which I find to be seriously absurd. It would mean the entire universe moves forward, leaving a trail of ‘time’ spaces behind.
Past and future are illusions created by the human mind. There is only one space, the here and now. The rest is an illusion akin to the one we experience when we look at the Sun and see it moving across the sky.
Holes are claimed to have a charge but it is a relative charge, not an actual charge. If an atom has a neutral charge, neither positive nor negative, and an electron is removed from it valence shell, it takes on a relative positive charge to similar neutral atoms. However, the comparable charges are presented by the negative electron charge where there is one more of them or one less. One less means relatively positive.
It’s a different matter if you have a capacitor that can store actual electrons with their charges and by adding or removing electrons we make the charge on the capacitor plate more negative or positive wrt to a plate with more electrons.
On the other hand, if you remove an electron from a valence shell, the hole left behind cannot act as an electron with a positive charge since it has no mass. An electron carries a negative charge because it is a mass with a charge.
***
re..time domain vs frequency domain. I don’t even remember discussing that. If you can find the original conversation I’d be interested in seeing what was discussed.
Gordon
There is no one called “ark” in this thread.
I don’t know where that conversation is, and I’m not sure which of my previous names it was under. But it was a fair way back, at least pre-covid. I don’t believe the terms “time domain” and “frequency domain” were actually used, but I was essentially describing one of those, and you told me I was wrong and essentially described the other.
Can you or can you not compare two time intervals and state with confidence that one is shorter or longer than the other?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Global
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2024/04/23/uah-mean-and-median-global-for-mar-2024/
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2024/04/23/uah-mean-and-median-tropics-for-mar-2024/
The global median for the past 12 months is +0.85, not +0.25.
Maybe you misunderstand Blindsley H00d’s picture, due to a wrong naming.
Just as the green line is the cascaded triple 12 month running mean, the red line is the cascaded triple 12 month running median.
The 0.85 you correctly obtained is the simple 12 month running median.
What on earth is “cascaded triple 12 month running median”, and how is it representative of reality?
No idea, I didn’t bring that stuff up. Blindsley H00d is heavily fixated on medians.
ark…re “cascaded triple 12 month running median”…I don’t know what it means either, so let’s take it one word/phrase at a time.
Cascade is a word used in electronic amplifiers. It means you take the output of one amp and feed it into another amp as input. The word cascade is taken from water going down a progressive set of mini waterfalls.
We know what median means, it’s the middle value of numbers arranged in order.
A running average is found by taking a set of numbers, beginning at the first and applying the averaging operator. If we have the numbers 10,20,30,40 50, we begin with 10. Only one number therefore average = 10/1 = 1. Now 10, 20…add 10 t0 20 = 30 and divide by 2 number = 15.
For 10,20,30…10 + 20 + 30 =60, Divide by 3 = 20
For 10,20,30 40 ….10 + 20 + 30 + 40 = 100/4 = 25
For 10,20,30, 40,50 ….150/5 = 30
We can see the averages, which are moving, or running, are 10,15, 20, 25, and 30.
I presume the same applies to medians but in a more convoluted way.
The triple designator seems to mean you take the numbers in groups of three, add them, and divide by 3. Then you take the next three numbers and do the same, on down the line.
I think we have nailed it down, now if Richard would kindly explain what it means. I think the cascading simply refers to the description where you calculate in groups, adjusting the average or mean as you go.
Gordon
Can you explain how it turns a 12-month median of +0.85 into +0.25, given that only one of the last 12 months was under +0.25?
Antonin Qwerty
In case you wouldn’t ask specifically about ‘cascaded triple 12 month running median‘ but about cascaded means in general…
Cascaded running means are obtained by successively apply running means, each of course with an increasing window.
Vaughan Pratt introduced a decade ago a method optimizing the window size in the cascades, allowing for leakage minimization:
2: 1.3937 Leakage 2.5% or -31.9 dB
3: 1.2067, 1.5478 Leakage 0.31% or -50.1 dB
4: 1.1252, 1.3440, 1.6275 Leakage 0.039% or -68.3 dB
5: 1.0832, 1.2343, 1.4352, 1.6757 Leakage 0.0047% or -86.5 dB
For a triple cascade starting with a window of length 60, the second one is 60/1.2067 ~ 50, and the third one then is 60/1.5478 ~ 39.
For centred running means, you have front window halves of size 30 /25/19, and back window halves of size 29/24/19 respectively (windows of even size have asymmetric ends).
Finally, a cascaded triple 12 month running median is obtained e.g. in a spreadsheet calculator by using the function ‘MEDIAN’ instead of the ‘AVERAGE’ function which is used to compute the cascaded triple 12 month running mean.
*
His median fixation goes back to a claim he made two years ago: namely that all historical temperature records would be wrong because based on (tmin+tmax)/2; using median values instead would give less warming.
I proved him wrong several times, using data from (1) DWD, the German Weather Service, (2) Meteostat and finally (3) the USCRN record:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AaxFh4QW5DTv7KH42H9DmSFGl68qJYRh/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FEoidp-brB2oZ_WyCnHNXZxW8pHS32JI/view
But he never admitted being wrong.
Antonin Qwerty (addendum)
You see the effect in WoodForTrees:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/mean:60/mean:50/mean:39/plot/uah6/mean:6/plot/uah6/mean:149
In blue you see a simple running mean with the same inactive window as the cascade (60+50+39 = 149 units).
For me, such cascades are of few interest, as you loose too much data.
They are actually useful only for people who really need peak removal, e.g. in electronic circuitry.
Antonin Qwerty
Finally, here is the end of a cascaded triple running median over UAH’s Globe data till Mar 2024:
2023 1 -0.04 0.220 0.205 0.196
2023 2 0.08 0.220 0.220 0.213
2023 3 0.20 0.220 0.220 0.220
2023 4 0.18 0.260 0.240
2023 5 0.37 0.285 0.273
2023 6 0.38 0.375 0.330
2023 7 0.64 0.510
2023 8 0.69 0.665
2023 9 0.90 0.760
2023 10 0.93 0.845
2023 11 0.91
2023 12 0.83
2024 1 0.86
2024 2 0.93
2024 3 0.95
*
The first running median ends with 0.845, the second one with 0.33 and the last one with 0.22.
Look at ignoramus Robertson’s sheer nonsense:
” The triple designator seems to mean you take the numbers in groups of three, add them, and divide by 3. ”
Yeah – that’s the level of his technical skills.
Binny,
“Yeah thats the level of his technical skills.”
Maybe you could actually try to be helpful, and support your disagreement with some facts.
In any case, maybe you could try to explain what endlessly reexamining historical weather observations is supposed to achieve. You have stated that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does not result in warming, so presumably you have some other explanation for the historical temperature variations you seem so fixated upon.
Are you keeping your speculations secret? Why not expose them to the light, and share them with others?
Or you could just mindlessly slaver and snap at all and sundry – like one of those rabid canines you are also obsessed with.
Mike Flynn,
You suggest –
“Maybe you could actually try to be helpful”
Have you ever actually tried to be helpful here, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bob d…”There are a bunch of different gases in the atmosphere that have 3 or more atoms”.
***
Yes, but don’t you find it at least a bit odd that 99.9% of atmospheric gases are monatomic and diatomic? And the diatomic are made of the same atoms bonded together? Those with more than two atoms make up such an insignificant amount of the atmosphere as to be entirely insignificant.
It is clear that a gas like CO2 sinks in air to the point you can pour it from one jar of CO2 into another. Yes, it actually flows downhill into another jar, displacing any of the other gases in there. Yet the rocket-scientist alarmists claim it is a well-mixed gas in the atmosphere.
Swamp gases, which make up a large part of the multi-atom gases tend to hover over swamps, hence the name. They pose a hazard in confined spaces since they sink to the bottom and displace molecules we need to breath. Many a construction worker has bought it by going down a manhole without testing the air first to see if it is breathable.
It is clear you have no idea about gases. IF gases in the atmosphere worked like you think, then CO2 would be at the bottom argon would next, followed by O2 and then N2 above those. We would all die of asphyxiation!
Yes, you can ‘pour CO2’ from one container to another, but if you agitate the gases even a bit (winds, convection, fans, etc) the gases mix and don’t unmix.
yes, Tim, I understand that gases don’t behave according to Newton’s 2nd law. And the mass weight of a carbon atom is likely insignificant compared to the mass weight of nitrogen or oxygen. All the same, it is significant to me that CO2 in a jar will pour cohesively into another jar whereas N2 and O2 won’t. You can even syphon CO2 from one jar to another, like a liquid.
If there was enough CO2 in the atmosphere it might pose a problem re hanging around the surface. I am not worried about that at 0.04%. However, in norther BC, Canada we have gas wells and if they are not careful and the gas escapes, it can hang around in a valley and asphyxiate people. I don’t see why CO2 at the same density would not act the same.
The alarmist argument is that CO2 is a well mixed gas, implying that when measured on the edge of a volcano it should have the same concentration globally. I am calling bs on that one.
“The alarmist argument is that CO2 is a well mixed gas, implying that when measured on the edge of a volcano it should have the same concentration globally. I am calling bs on that one.”
It known very high levels of CO2 can be found near volcanoes.
And if you pumped a lot CO2 underground, and if it somehow quickly escaped, it would kill a lot.
And under oceans there are pools/lakes of CO2.
gb,
If you feel like it, look up the Lake Nyos disaster.
” … when measured on the edge of a volcano it should have the same concentration globally. I am calling bs on that one. ”
As always, ignoramus Robertson blathers and blathers instead of searching for CO2 measurement stations worldwide.
“As always, ignoramus Robertson blathers and blathers . . . ”
Why not just present your information, and let others make up their own minds?
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You proclaim –
“Why not just present your information, and let others make up their own minds?”
When was the last time you did present any information?
Silly sock puppet!
“yes, Tim, I understand that gases dont behave according to Newtons 2nd law. ”
The problem is that your posts suggest the opposite.
When people or nature go to a lot of trouble to concentrate CO2, then you can do things like pour it from one container to another, or have it erupt from a lake and kill animals in a valley.
But give that CO2 even a little stir and it quickly becomes well mixed. Other than the immediate vicinity of a CO2 source, CO2 is quite well mixed.
Its like so many of your other claims — false or misleading.
“dont you find it at least a bit odd that 99.9% of atmospheric gases are monatomic and diatomic?”
Wrong. Water makes up a few percent of the atmosphere (varying locally with temperature and humidity.
“[Swamp gases] pose a hazard in confined spaces.”
But the atmosphere is not made of ‘confined spaces’ like a sewer, so this is misleading.
“… make up such an insignificant amount of the atmosphere as to be entirely insignificant.
H20 and C02 are certainly not insignificant to plants! And they are also not insignificant to thermal IR radiation either.
Gordon,
CO2 is significant enough in concentration to produce a big notch in the outgoing infrared spectrum of the radiation emitted by the Earth.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“CO2 is significant enough in concentration to produce a big notch in the outgoing infrared spectrum of the radiation emitted by the Earth.”
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and the surface does so every night, in winter, when it’s cloudy, snowing, raining, during solar eclipses – and so on.
A big notch? You have but a tenuous grip on reality, don’t you?
I suppose you are fanatical enough to believe in a GHE which nobody can even describe! What’s this GHE supposed to do? Heat? Cool? Do nothing? Make notches?
You seem slightly confused.
Flynnson
Why are you tr0lling all the time?
The surface cools all the day long, and not only at night.
You are such a boring ignoramus, Flynnson.
bob believes the “big notch” means something. Here’s a question for bob, or any other cultist —
Would adding more CO2 to the atmosphere increase or decrease the “notch”?
(I bet they won’t be able to understand.)
Clint,
The notch would be deeper and wider.
Swenson,
You are the one confused.
I wasn’t even talking about the Earths temperature over the last 4.5 billion years.
If you claim the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, you should at least be familiar with the evidence for it.
I was referring to Earth’s out going infrared spectrum.
Sorry bob, but that’s wrong.
Adding more CO2 would increase the 15μ photons (the photons in the “notch”) going to space. So the “notch” would decrease (opposite of “deeper and wider”).
Clint,
Got any evidence?
I’m merely pointing out another flaw in your cult’s tangled nonsense, bob.
Now you seem to be claiming CO2 can only absorb, it can’t emit.
Very tangled.
Clint,
At the very least, half of the emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere are downward.
It’s actually much more than that, but you don’t understand, and make straw, and gaslight.
Because that’s all you got.
No science from you.
Wrong again, bob.
CO2 emits more to space. That’s just basic solid geometry.
But the 15μ photons arriving back to Earth can’t warm a 288K surface. That’s just basic physics.
Clint,
The notch represents a deficit of photons.
And furthermore if 15u photons can cool the Earth, then they can certainly warm the Earth.
But they don’t cool the Earth, because most of them are downwelling.
All wrong, bob.
You’re way off track — not even making sense.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“I was referring to Earths out going infrared spectrum.” – which is completely irrelevant to anything at all.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, regardless of your fixation with any silly “notches”, or any “greenhouse effect” which nobody can describe!
Surface temperatures due to sunlight vary between about +90 C and -90 C.
Are you really stupid enough to claim these temperatures bear some relationship to your “notches” or your non-existent “greenhouse effect”? Rhetorical question, I know. You are obviously gullible and ignorant enough to believe passionately in something you cannot even describe!
Does that make you a fanatical GHE cultist?
Binny,
You wrote –
“Flynnson
Why are you tr0lling all the time?
The surface cools all the day long, and not only at night.
You are such a boring ignoramus, Flynnson.”
Well, gee, Binny. Some people seem to claim that surface temperatures rise during the day, but if you say otherwise, that’s your right. By the way, at least you agree that surface temperatures drop at night, as I said.
Do you believe the “greenhouse effect” is responsible for your continuous cooling?
Maybe you could try to describe this “greenhouse effect”? Let me know when you’re finished, so I can stop laughing.
Carry on.
Clint and Swenson,
Some data for you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation#/media/File:Spectral_Greenhouse_Effect.png
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Clint and Swenson,
Some data for you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation#/media/File:Spectral_Greenhouse_Effect.png”
What do you think that means? You are probably ignorant and gullible enough to believe in a GHE – which nobody can describe, of course.
Bad luck bumbling bobby, the surface cools every night – notwithstanding your pointless graphic.
Carry on.
Swenson,
I gave you a nice pretty picture showing what the greenhouse effect is.
A five year old could understand that.
Too bad you don’t understand any physics.
Flynnson and grammie clone still don’t get it. They look at the graph bobdroege posted and miss the essential truth. The “notch” in the TOA outgoing emission curve represents the CO2 emissions from near the tropopause altitudes. They want to forget the slayers claims that the CO2 bands are “saturated”, which would imply that there would be ZERO surface and lower atmosphere emissions to deep space. Yet, there it is for all to see.
bob throws more crap against the wall. And E. Swanson jumps in to help with he crap.
From E. Swanson’s link (bold my emphasis) — Simulated wavenumber spectrum of the Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) using ARTS.
They’re so devoted to the cult that everything is “proof” of the GHE.
Neither of the two understands any of this. But, they make good cultists….
Clint,
Mine is from NASA and doesn’t say simulated, and looks exactly like Swanson’s
A notch representing 7% of the area of the entire curve does not mean a lot. It does mean that 93% of surface radiation escapes directly to space.
Gordon
What is 7% of (288 – 255) ?
Gordon, I might not have seen this since I usually just scan through to see if anything interesting is being discussed, but this caught my eye:
“It is clear that a gas like CO2 sinks in air to the point you can pour it from one jar of CO2 into another. Yes, it actually flows downhill into another jar, displacing any of the other gases in there. Yet the rocket-scientist alarmists claim it is a well-mixed gas in the atmosphere.”
Your observation has some truth to it, but you are mostly missing the point. I know the answer, but let’s have some fun. Can you describe that observation in the context of the kinetic theory of gases, molecular diffusion, and most importantly the relationship between molecular weight and the viscosity of gases? Do not try to claim that gases do not have viscous properties because that is a losing answer.
Earlier, bumbling bobdroege wrote –
“Jeez, thats like the first problem in the first problem set in the first physics class one can take.”
It’s a pity you can’t (or won’t answer it, then).
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Step 2 – Sammich Request
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Take a steel ball and drop it of off a tall building.
What is its speed and position after 1 second?
After 2 seconds?
You may ignore the effects of air resistance for this problem.
You never took any physics classed, now did you?
If the atmosphere has no effect, as in a vacuum, then a larger steel ball (1000 times the mass) would have the same speed.
That’s why we know Earth can NOT produce a torque on Moon.
And that means “tidal locking” is just more cult nonsense….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Why do you think the torque needs to come from the Earth, and why do you not say “the Earth”?
Clint,
The center of mass of the Moon, and the center of gravity of the Moon are not aligned with the center of gravity of the Earth, thus we know that the Earth’s gravity can and does exert a torque on the Moon.
Silly willy and bob are so desperate that they’re now just throwing pure crap against the wall. They’re no longer even pretending to have any science.
At this point, it’s best to just sit back and enjoy their schitt show….
All wrong, Puffman.
You’re way off track with your Kafka trap.
Bumbling bobby,
First you wrote –
“Jeez, thats like the first problem in the first problem set in the first physics class one can take”, without specifying the “first problem” at all.
Are you now saying that the “first problem” is –
“Take a steel ball and drop it of off a tall building.
What is its speed and position after 1 second?
After 2 seconds?
You may ignore the effects of air resistance for this problem.”
What first physics class has that problem as the first problem in the first problem set, bumbling bobby? None at all, that’s what! You just make this stuff up as you go along, don’t you?
I can see why the US Navy let you go, if that’s your idea of a well posed physics problem. Other fanatical GHE enthusiasts might applaud, but I would have to fail you for poor English expression (“drop it of off”) or sloppiness (if you really meant to write something else).
As to the physics, the question is meaningless without further information. How high is this “tall building”? What is the local value of g? What “position” are you referring to? If you are referring to the distance the ball has travelled, why are you calling it ax”position”?
Are you mad or just stupid?
What particular form of mental aberration leads you to think I am inclined to answer such a poorly posed question?
If you don’t know the answer, and can demonstrate that you have made some reasonable effort to find it for yourself, I will help you. You can use the second equation of motion as is, or you can derive the equation from basic principles using calculus, of course.
Off you go, and try not to be so silly next time.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Clint,
The center of mass of the Moon, and the center of gravity of the Moon are not aligned with the center of gravity of the Earth, thus we know that the Earths gravity can and does exert a torque on the Moon.”
You really don’t know what you are talking about, do you?
Are you actually trying to say that the three points to which you refer are not in a straight line, but are too incompetent to figure out how to express yourself? Given that the Moon is in free fall with respect to the Earth, and shows only one face to the Earth, some might rightly assume that any rotation that the Moon previously had about an axis inclined to its orbital plane would have ceased.
It actually turns out that that the Moon’s center of mass, its center of gravity, and the Earth’s center of gravity are well aligned, and due to mass discontinuities within the Moon, the Moon’s mass is unbalanced. Essentially, the off-balance Moon has stopped with its heaviest part closest to the Earth.
Others may have their own views, but evidence including lunar gravity field readings supports me.
Off you go, bobby, make some other unsupported assertion. Pretend you are intelligent. See how you get on.
Swenson,
The Navy didn’t “let me go”
I fulfilled my obligation to the Navy.
16 feet below the point the ball was dropped, and moving down at 32 ft/sec after one second.
64 feet below the point the ball was dropped, and moving down at 64 ft/sec
And yes you are correct, I should have said off of instead of of off.
Swenson,
“Are you actually trying to say that the three points to which you refer are not in a straight line, but are too incompetent to figure out how to express yourself?”
Yeah, that’s what I was saying.
Do you not understand what I said?
The Moon and the Earth put torques on each other, that’s whay there are tides, and also why the Moon is receding from the Earth over long time periods.
The Moon rotates on its own internal axis, and revolves around the Earth in an elliptical orbit. So it does not revolve at a constant speed but rotates with a constant rate, these two actions cause the alignment of the center of gravity of the Moon, the center of mass of the Moon and the center of gravity of the Earth to become misaligned.
Sorry to hear you don’t understand physics or astronomy and act like an ass.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“The Moon and the Earth put torques on each other, thats whay there are tides, and also why the Moon is receding from the Earth over long time periods.”
You don’t need to appear more idiotic than you are.
You are definitely ignorant and gullible. The Moon presents one face to the Earth – its heaviest. It has stopped rotating. Maybe you are gullible enough that the gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Moon is lessening, due to some uninformed nitwits misunderstanding the laws of physics.
The Moon is in free fall towards the Earth, whether you want to believe it or not.
But hey, if you want to believe the same sorts of dummies who believe that melting sea ice raises sea levels (NSF), or who believe that 100 joules of energy impinging on the Earth’s surface cause it to radiate away 117 joules (NASA), go for it.
No facts will be harmed in the process!
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“16 feet below the point the ball was dropped, and moving down at 32 ft/sec after one second.
64 feet below the point the ball was dropped, and moving down at 64 ft/sec”
Close enough for government work, I suppose. Does the US Navy accept your setting of the acceleration due to gravity as 32 ft/sec^2, or might it prefer, say, 32.174 ft/sec^2.
I suppose the US Navy might ignore the fact that the actual acceleration varies by around 0.5%, depending on location – and other factors.
Notwithstanding your obvious sloppiness, why did you bother asking me for an answer when you were perfectly capable of coming up with a sloppy answer yourself? You were just trying to appear intelligent, weren’t you?
How are you getting along with describing the GHE? Be as sloppy as you like – I’ll be glad to point out your incompetence, if you wish.
” The Moon presents one face to the Earth its heaviest. It has stopped rotating. ”
Ooooh!
I don’t remember Flynnson ever explaining it so offensively.
*
So we can now definitely count him as one of the dangerous ignorant people who would have sent Armstrong and Aldrin to certain death if he had been responsible for setting up their rendezvous with Collins at lunar ascent time: namely, by ignoring the fact that the position of the two on the Moon after a stay of 21.5 hours was shifted by about 360 kilometers.
This, Flynnson, is definitely bookmarked.
Bindi, any movement of Moon is due to its orbit. It has no other movements! (Libration is only due to viewing angle. It is NOT an actual movement.)
You don’t understand ANY of this. That’s why you have NO model of “orbiting without spin”.
You have NOTHING.
Swenson,
“The Moon is in free fall towards the Earth, whether you want to believe it or not.”
Well dummie, the towards is unnecessary, for half its orbit the Moon is in free fall away from the Earth.
I already told you that.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1662845
Wrong again, bob.
Moon is always “falling” to Earth. Its linear momentum maintains its orbit. You just don’t understand orbital motion.
Worse yet, you can’t learn.
Right Clint,
except when it is falling away from the Earth, which it does for half of its orbit.
Apogee and Perigee, two concepts you fail to understand.
Wrong again, bob.
You’re so confused it’s hard to figure out what you’re talking about.
You’re confused by Moon’s elliptical orbit. You’re confused by the vector resultant. You do not understand the resultant is composed of the linear motion AND the “falling” motion.
This is way over your head, as usual.
Clint,
The Moon moves away from the Earth for half of its orbit and then moves towards the Earth for the other half.
But it rotates on an internal axis all the time.
One pole points towards Doradus, the other towards Draconis.
Sorry bob, but finding info from your cult to support your cult ain’t science.
Principles of physics proves you wrong. Moon does NOT spin. Just like the ball-on-a-string, one side always faces the inside of the orbit.
Clint,
You still haven’t tried the baseball and basketball experiment.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“Youre way off track with your Kafka trap.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Have you lost your footing?
Please stop being an ass like Graham D. Warner.
“Have you lost your footing?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hypothetical:
(A) The moon is placed at a distance of 35,786 km from the earth, ie. at geostationary/geosynchronous altitude, so that it completes one revolution of the earth in one day. Nothing else changes.
Is the EARTH rotating?
.
.
(B) At the same geostationary/geosynchronous altitude, the moon is now given the same mass as the earth.
Is the EARTH rotating?
.
.
(C) At the same geostationary/geosynchronous altitude, the moon’s mass is given a larger mass than the earth, let’s say … how about 81 times the mass of the earth.
Is the EARTH rotating?
.
.
If the answers to (A), (B) and (C) are different, what is the demarcation line between rotation and non-rotation of the earth as the mass of the moon changes?
And there is no need to point out that the earth and moon rotate about their centre of mass. That is the whole point of taking three cases.
Ant, this issue concerns Moon, not Earth.
Earth both orbits and spins. Moon only orbits. Your cult believes Moon also spins, because that belief got carried over from ancient astrology. What we see here is your cult knows NOTHING about orbital motion. That’s why they can’t come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
Just like they can’t come up with a viable description/definition of the bogus GHE.
So your only response is to DEFINE the moon as not rotating.
Why can’t you explain in what respect (C) is different to the actual situation, without resorting to defining things the way you want them to be, and without merely ASSERTING a lack of understanding.
Ant, you’re just using the same cult tactic. You’re trying to find a way to look at the situation to uphold your cult beliefs. You’re trying to make it “look like” Earth is not spinning by using a geosynchronous view point. Like your cult, you’re trying to find ways to support false beliefs.
Earth is spinning no matter how you look at it. That’s why you can’t come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. Any viable model debunks your astrology.
Puffman’s ineffective bullying continues.
To all the Moon spin objectors.
If the Moon was truly not rotating, then every star in the universe save one would be revolving around the Moon and exceeding the speed of light.
Case closed, the Moon is spinning on an internal axis.
I almost feel sorry for poor bob. He’s STILL confused by orbital motion. He can’t tell the difference between “orbiting” and “spinning”.
And, as we know, he can’t learn.
I understand, Clint, that you NEED to be right, and the only way of believing you’ve “won” is to not engage, and instead resort to bluster instead. Exactly what is expected from a Google scientist.
Ant, where’s your viable model of “orbiting without spin”?
You’re not here with NOTHING, are you?
I don’t see YOUR such model that is consistent for the moon and the earth. All I see is an inconsistent definition.
Clint,
My level of confusion has nothing to do with the orbit and spin of the Moon.
Try attacking my arguments instead of attacking me.
Ark, once again you don’t understand ANY of this. This issue is about Moon, not Earth.
The ball-on-a-string model is “orbiting without spin”. That’s consistent with Moon’s motion, as the same side of Moon always faces the inside of its orbit. Now you can say something stoopid like “But Moon’s orbit is elliptical”. That’s called “throwing crap against the wall”.
Your wall is really getting filthy….
bob, you don’t have any viable arguments. Quit whining.
You can’t even tell the difference between “orbiting” and “spinning”.
And, as we know, you can’t learn.
Clint,
I have proved the ball on a string is rotating on its own internal axis.
You don’t understand it, and can’t learn.
Same goes for the Moon.
Sorry that I keep missing the wall and hitting your face.
Go clean yourself up.
Here we have cLInt accusing people of being confused, while simultaneously addressing a person who has not taken part in this thread. He and Gordon have done this multiple times, so it is clear who the confused person is here.
It’s easy to get you cult children confused, Ant. You’re all very similar — ignorant of science, and unable to learn.
No cLInt, the cult members are those who repeat the same comments and stock phrases over and over without thinking, a la that last comment of yours, and your continual posting of “ark” because you post by auto-pilot. The cult members are those who continue to “prove” by assertion, being incapable of engaging with the science, a la ALL your comments here. You have clearly never undertaken a science course in your life. You probably believe that reading the buy-bull is “learning”.
“I have proved the ball on a string is rotating on its own internal axis…”
…in your imagination.
Sorry Ant, but a cult has false beliefs that deny reality. You know, like claiming the ball-on-a-string is spinning, when the reality is if it were spinning the string would wrap around it.
Cultist can’t learn, either, as you clearly demonstrate.
Clint,
Sorry, any object that changes orientation is rotating.
As you reinforce my comment, cLInt, by continuing to refuse to engage with the science, instead resorting to more unsupported assertions.
bob confirms his ignorance, again.
He doesn’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “spinning”.
And, he can’t learn.
It’s the same with all the cult. That’s why it’s a cult.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1663570
Yes Ant, you’re repeating your comment over and over, just like a good cultist.
Clint still thinks he is Napoleon.
Clint,
Spinning is a change in orientation over time.
Orbiting is a path followed by a celestial object.
Two independent motions.
Orbits are not limited to elliptical or circular motions.
Orbital motion without axial rotation is an object following a path while maintaining its orientation in one specific direction, say constantly pointing to a distant star.
bob contradicts himself by saying that:
"Orbiting is a path followed by a celestial object"
then:
"Orbital motion without axial rotation is an object following a path while maintaining its orientation in one specific direction, say constantly pointing to a distant star"
He first tries to separate out orientation from "orbiting", claiming it’s just a path…but when it comes down to it, his version of "orbit without spin" does specify orientation.
As I keep trying to explain to people. "Orbit without spin" must specify orientation. Nothing else makes any sense. It’s basically either going to be movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR.
Without spin is what specifies orientation.
The orbit part is superfluous.
…and your:
"while maintaining its orientation in one specific direction, say constantly pointing to a distant star"
is arbitrary.
What do you mean arbitrary,
It’s fixed by the direction the object is facing, if it is not changing then it is not rotating, if it’s changing then it is rotating.
Axial rotation means rotation on an axis, and has nothing to do with the orbit.
Pointing towards the Earth while orbiting the Earth is not a constant direction, it changes as the object orbits.
As I keep trying to explain to people. “Orbit without spin” must specify orientation. Nothing else makes any sense. Its basically either going to be movement like the MOTL, or the MOTR.”
To spinners orientation is fixed, only because ORBIT does not include or describe any rotational motion, only translational motion.
But they know to describe the FULL motion of a body, it must include translation plus rotation. Thus rotation rate and axis is separately described.
So there is no problem here, just an attempt to manufacture a controversy.
Non-spinners want to define ORBIT such that orientation is fixed to the planet being orbited, for some unknown reason. This requires SPIN to be DEFINED as rotation wrt a rotating frame of reference.
Then they weirdly deny that reference frames matter, when it obviously is part of how they weirdly define orbit and spin.
What I mean, bob, is that your idea of "orbit without spin" is simply a matter of convenience. It might make it all simple, to have "orbit without spin" be movement where one side of the body keeps facing some distant star, but it has nothing to do with what "orbiting" actually means. It has nothing to do with the forces involved in orbital motion, and what movement they produce. If you were asked what your physical model of "orbit without spin" was, what would you reply with?
All the viable physical models of "orbit without spin" support the "Non-Spinners". Something like the ball on a string is objectively not spinning, moves like the MOTL, and has something to represent gravity – the string. What do you guys have?
A yo-yo on a frictionless axle – that fails, because it’s objectively spinning.
A model moon attached to an XY plotter pen – that fails, because it has nothing to represent gravity.
Just about anything you can come up with will fall into one of those two categories…it’s either objectively spinning, or has nothing to represent gravity.
Or, you could go for something like Newton’s Cannonball…which nobody can prove moves like either the MOTL or the MOTR, and so doesn’t resolve the issue either way!
DREMPTY,
“If you were asked what your physical model of “orbit without spin” was, what would you reply with?”
I have already answered this question, there is no physical model of orbit without spin.
“All the viable physical models of “orbit without spin” support the “Non-Spinners”. ”
There are no viable models of orbit without spin.
Everything is spinning.
…and that’s why we call them "Spinners".
"Everything is spinning".
bob just says the most ridiculous things in the most deadpan way. So, every grain of sand in the Sahara Desert is spinning on its own internal axis, just because the Earth is spinning. In no way are the grains of sand just rotating about the Earth’s axis, same as every other part of the Earth. Oh no. They’re actually "spinning".
The insanity never ends. There’s nowhere that they’ll draw the line.
Sorry DREMPTY,
We do draw the line.
Lets try some definitions
Orbit: In celestial mechanics, an orbit (also known as orbital revolution) is the curved trajectory of an object such as the trajectory of a planet around a star, or of a natural satellite around a planet, or of an artificial satellite around an object or position in space such as a planet, moon, asteroid, or Lagrange point.
Axial rotation.
It is a special case of rotational motion around an axis of rotation fixed, stationary, or static in three-dimensional space2. The amount of turning in this rotation is generally measured in degrees, radians or revolutions1. Axial rotation is most commonly seen in celestial bodies, mechanical operations, and anatomical movements1. In yoga, axial rotation is a movement that revolves or twists the spine3.:
So you can see, neither definition references the other, ie no mention of rotation in the orbit definition and no mention of orbit in the axial rotation definition.
Two independent motions, neither one implies the other.
So your definition of orbital motion without axial rotation being like the motion of the Moon, is bonkers.
You still can’t show me an object that is not rotating.
All the sand grains in the Sahara desert are indeed rotating, because they are part of a rotating object, and do not maintain orientation on a distant star.
"All the sand grains in the Sahara desert are indeed rotating"
Once again, bob says it with a straight face. He means "spinning" as well, i.e. rotating on their own internal axes!
> is arbitrary
Says Graham D. Warner, without any whiff of self-awareness.
After all these years, has he really not realized that he’s just rediscovered a conventionalist old chestnut?
DREMPTY,
Adress this point then,
[Bob]”Two independent motions, neither one implies the other.”
No cLInt, that is what YOU are doing.
I simply decided to play your game, and unlike you I did it ONCE.
Nothing to address, bob. You’ve already said you think “orbit without spin” is movement where one side of the body always faces some distant fixed star (i.e. movement like the MOTR), but you cannot provide a viable physical model for it because you said “everything is spinning”. So, that means you agree that the yo-yo with a frictionless axle, which moves as per the MOTR, is spinning, for example. That leaves you, as Clint R would say, with NOTHING.
Exactly, Bob.
Independence sinks whatever boat Moon Dragon cranks handwave to.
DREMPTY,
A yo-yo spins about the frictionless axis, another toy you haven’t played with, they haven’t been popular since you were born.
So they also don’t move like the MOTR.
It doesn’t help your case to bring in other objects whose motion you don’t understand.
DREMPTY,
Why do you run away from defining things as fast as your littles legs can propel you?
Provide your definitions of rotation and orbiting please?
Do make sure they are independent.
“provide a viable physical model”
Why do non-spinners keep saying this, while offering nothing but table-top toys that cannot actually mimic gravity?
Whereas, we can offer Newton’s viable physical model, the mathematical solution to the two-body gravity problem, that agrees with observations. It gives the orbit equation:
“In astrodynamics, an orbit equation defines the path of orbiting body without specifying position as a function of time. Under standard assumptions, a body moving under the influence of a force, directed to a central body, with a magnitude inversely proportional to the square of the distance (such as gravity), has an orbit that is a conic section (i.e. circular orbit, elliptic orbit, parabolic trajectory, hyperbolic trajectory, or radial trajectory) with the central body located at one of the two foci, or the focus (Kepler’s first law).”
Do the non-spinners imagine this equation gives the orientation or rotation of the body, also?
It doesnt. It has nothing to say about that.
Oh well
I see the cult children are still at it.
bob STILL doesn’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “spinning”. He seems to understand they are different motions, but he can’t tell the difference. (We’ve been saying they are different motions for YEARS!)
And poor Nate STILL doesn’t understand the simple ball-on-a-string. He’s found a web source that mentions “orbit equation” and Kepler’s Laws, but he doesn’t understand that neither has anything to do with spin.
The cult knows nothing about the underlying science, and can’t learn.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Well Clint,
Your definition of orbital motion with out axial rotation is wrong.
Because keeping one side towards the inside of the object requires the object to be rotating.
Please buckle your seat belts in the clown car.
Wrong again, bob.
The ball is not spinning. If it were, the string would wrap around it.
You can’t understand any of this.
What will you throw against the wall next?
That’s stooopid Clint
The string is also rotating, so it does not wrap around the ball.
Your old tired arguments are like Franco, still dead.
Wrong again, bob.
Hold the loose end of the string and spin the ball in place. Notice the string wraps around it.
When swinging the ball, the string is rotating about the “held” end, not its center of mass.
Get an adult to explain it to you.
They still have NOTHING.
Yes dear Clint,
When the string is not rotating, and the ball is rotating, then it wraps aroung the ball.
Try it with both the string and the ball spinning.
bob doesn’t even understand that the yo-yo moves as per the MOTR. Sheesh.
“And poor Nate STILL doesnt understand the simple ball-on-a-string.”
Yes I understand that it is not a model for planetary orbits. And even you admitted that many times!
Its a good model for the ball-on-a-string, and thus for planetary orbits, a red herring.
DREMPTY,
“bob doesnt even understand that the yo-yo moves as per the MOTR. Sheesh.”
You don’t seem to understand how a yo-yo works.
It’s allways spinning, when it stops spinning the trick is done, and you have to rewind it and start over.
You are a thick, worthless failure, bob. The most laughable of all the "Spinners".
Yet I beat you like a drum, where does that put you.
The Moon rotates on its axis every 27.3 days.
That’s an observational fact.
Measured by thousands of Astronomers.
Dumb.
DREMPTY,
You even Dunning-Kruger on yo-yos.
Claiming a yo-yo moves like the MOTR.
https://www.classicyoyotricks.com/yoyo-trick-list/
Pretty ******* lame
Please continue to amuse.
You are right DREMPTY,
It’s amusing, and fascinating how wrong you are.
The example of a yo-yo with a frictionless axle moving as per the MOTR came from "Spinners", bob. It’s not even me you’re disagreeing with. That’s what’s so funny.
Its amusing, and fascinating how wrong you are.
Maybe you could quote a “spinner” saying something about a yo-yo
Cause yo-yos are always spinning.
Maybe you should buy one and learn some tricks.
Like ones even I could do, like: Walk the dog, rock the baby, around the world, sleep, ect.
Which all have the yo-yo spinning, unlike the MOTR.
bob, you said everything is spinning. That means the MOTR, too. Everything means everything.
DREMPTY,
The Moon on the right is not real. Everything real is rotating on its internal axis.
The Moon on the left is also not real, but is a model of something that is real, and rotating on its internal axis.
Now you have lost your grip on reality.
Sorry for your loss.
So you are saying nothing can move as per the MOTR? What about in the CSAItruth video, when the spinning model moon moves as per the MOTR?
DREMPTY,
The Moon in the video is not spinning, sorry dude, but counterclockwise spin plus clockwise spin at the same rate equals no spin.
Take a stiff wire, rotate it with your fingers, it’s rotating, right?
Now bend it in a dogleg so the end you are not spinning is revolving.
Now the tip opposite of your hand that is spinning it is both revolving and spinning. Attach a ball to that end.
Guess what, the ball is spinning.
The model moon in the video is spinning, bob. There’s a motor spinning it.
No DREMT, the model moon is not spinning on its own axis, the motor is spinning on its own axis.
Go away, Ball4.
All countries in our world are going to the Moon.
The non spinning Moon is often mentioned on this blog- everyone interested in the Moon.
Does going to the Moon has anything to do with Earth’s global climate?
It seems in many ways it is.
One thing about global climate, is the rather silly idea, that governments can do anything about Earth global climate.
This related to the Moon, because if we can land people on the Moon,
then we can do {blank}.
The US did it’s war on Poverty and it’s war on Drugs. And currently it seems trying to start WWIII.
None of these worked as well as landing a man on the Moon- but a government could do such things.
Now we are in an Ice Age and 15 C air temperature is cold. And we really haven’t measured global air temperature, but we have been measuring the changes in global air temperature and average temperature of the Ocean {which is about 3.5 C- but we haven’t really measured it, it’s a rough guess. So Ocean average is about 3.5 C and global air temperature 15 C.
Average land surface temperature is about 10 C and ocean surface is about 17 C
> The non spinning Moon
Cranks presume the darnedest things.
“Cranks presume the darnedest things.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Other than perhaps you, no denier here has indicated the remotest interest in the moon, or in any science. If they didn’t have their agenda they would still have never opened a science book. And their only reason for opening one is to quote mine.
Wrong Ant. You’ve indicated an interest in the moon, and you’re a science denier.
“Does going to the Moon has anything to do with Earths global climate?
It seems in many ways it is.”
lol. If you think deniers have no interest in science, why spend your time trying to convince them that they too should be wetting their beds at night, thinking about the cLiMaTe EmErGenCy?
A,
You wrote –
“no denier here has indicated the remotest interest in the moon, or in any science . . .”
Maybe you could say what you consider a “denier” to be? Someone who knows that you can’t describe the GHE, perhaps? That would be very annoying, I suppose.
You probably want to call me a “denier”, but you can’t actually specify what you think I am “denying”, can you?
That’s the sort of silliness that fanatical GHE cultists indulge in.
Are you one?
Mike Flynn,
Climate deniers deny the most obvious phenomenons: that the Earth is warming, that it is caused by the greenhouse effect, that human contributions are responsible for it, etc.
Most of them are cranks who also disbelieve other obvious phenomenons: that the Moon spins, that Covid wasn’t a conspiracy, etc.
Confer to Bordo’s comments for more.
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Climate deniers deny the most obvious phenomenons: that the Earth is warming, that it is caused by the greenhouse effect, that human contributions are responsible for it, etc.”
What has any of that got to do with climate? The Earth is cooling, you ninny. Ask your pal Ken Rice (andthentheresphysics).
You are confused – when thermometers show a rise in temperature, they are responding to heat, not some mythical “greenhouse effect”. Ask any physicist (who is not a fanatical GHE supporter).
I’ll guess that you cannot name a single reasonably sane person who denies that weather (and hence climate) changes. You are quite mad, aren’t you?
You even manage to lose trying to play your own “silly semantic games”! Have you managed to improve on your GHE description of “not cooling, slower cooling”? Is that the same GHE involved in “the Earth is warming”? Have you a longer attention span than a goldfish, or do you believe cooling results in warming?
Keep the laughs coming, O humorous one!
Mike Flynn,
You asked for a sammich.
You got served.
It is getting cold.
Why do you not eat it, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Blundering bobby demonstrates his ignorance.
He wrote –
“Well dummie, the towards is unnecessary, for half its orbit the Moon is in free fall away from the Earth.”
I understand what blundering bobdroege thinks, but his thinking is flawed, as usual.
In common with most fanatical GHE cultists (who can’t even describe the GHE, of course), the fact that the Moon’s elliptical orbit might lead an observer who believed that celestial beings propel the Moon around its orbit, to think that some force other than gravity was acting on the Moon, and pushing or pulling it to and fro.
A quote from a US university “the Moon is completely under gravity’s thrall; in other words, it falls, because in such a frame there’s only one force on the Moon: gravity. ”
Even when it becomes more distant from the Earth, it is still falling towards the Earth. Bumbling bobby doesnt like the word “towards”, but the force of gravity on the Moon acts “towards” the Earth, never “away” from it.
If burbling bobby could at least learn to spell “dummy” it would help his cause, I suppose.
Swenson,
You don’t understand the difference between falling and freefall.
The Moon is accelerating towards the Earth, it’s in freefall, but it is not continuously falling towards the Earth.
Earth has two set of Lagrange points.
Earth/Sun and Earth/Moon.
— For example, the Earth-moon system has its own set of Lagrange points. L1 is between Earth and the moon, L2 is on the far side of the moon, L3 is on the opposite side of Earth to the moon, and L4 and L5 are 60 degrees in front of and behind the moon on its orbit around Earth.Jan 31, 2024–
https://www.space.com/30302-lagrange-points.html
L-5 space cadet desire a settlement at Earth/Moon L-5 because L-5 or L-4 are considered roughly speaking, more stable.
So if got something at L-5 {same orbit as Moon but 60 degree following the moon at lunar distance from Earth].
So put sphere at L-5 point and have part of sphere will always face the Moon.
So when Moon is full, this sphere is 60 degree behind it, and when Moon moves 60 degree forward [or sixth of it’s total orbital path] the sphere as seen from earth will be full.
So if same part of sphere is always facing the Moon, is the sphere spinning?
You could same thing in any orbit, have two satellite in same orbit, one following the other, both always facing each other, are either spinning. Or two people in spacesuits, always looking at each other and say their feet are always towards Earth- and say they are 20 meters apart, in Low Earth orbit. Are they spinning?
Flynn
(1) “Even when it becomes more distant from the Earth, it is still falling towards the Earth.”
“Falling” refers to the direction of the vertical component of the VELOCITY vector, NOT the direction of the acceleration vector.
This is the “science” we have to deal with from you google “scientists”. You have never had to prove to anyone by examination or experiment that you understand science. This is what happens when people appoint themselves the assessor of their own knowledge.
.
.
.
(2) “the force of gravity on the Moon acts towards the Earth, never away from it.”
You accuse people of sloppy English, yet here you have written an utterly ambiguous sentence. And I bet you can’t even see the ambiguity. Taking it literally, it is an incorrect statement. Let’s see if you can figure out what needs to be added to remove the ambiguity.
Clarification:
The term “fall” is used only loosely here. Whether the moon actually “falls” depends on your definition for “fall”. But no one would claim that a projectile fired vertically upwards is falling until after it reaches its apex. Similarly, no one would claim that a projectile fired slightly off the vertical is falling while its altitude is increasing, even though its trajectory is concave down. The negative magnitude of the concavity is indicated by (but not equal to) the acceleration.
So I should have said that the object is “falling” when either:
(1) the vertical component of the velocity vector points downwards
or (2) the altitude is decreasing
depending of your definition of “falling”.
It is NOT falling just because the acceleration has a downward component.
This Moon issue was over years ago. As I mentioned then, it was over with DREMT’s example of “orbiting without spin” — the chalk circle on the outer edge of a merry-go-round platform.
There are numerous examples of “orbiting without spin”, but the cult is unable to come up with even one that is viable. Because that is what Moon is doing.
They’ve got NOTHING.
The chalk circle is lying underneath the merry go round because I applied a non rotating hole saw to the chalk circle which cut the circle out.
Sorry Clint but that one was debunked long ago.
bob proves that the merry-go-round is rotating. Yes, we knew that. Obviously the chalk circle is not rotating on its own internal axis. It’s just a segment of the floor of the merry-go-round. All parts of the merry-go-round are rotating about an axis in the centre of the merry-go-round, not on their own internal axes. They don’t even have their own internal axes, about which to rotate. You could have an infinite number of potential chalk circles on the merry-go-round. They’re not all rotating on their own internal axes, just because the merry-go-round is rotating. Where does it end? Is every individual atom of the merry-go-round spinning, in the same direction, at the exact same rate, just because the merry-go-round is rotating!?
Sooner or later, this madness has to end. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The line is a circle, drawn in chalk, on the merry-go-round.
The merry go round is rotating but the hole saw is not.
So there is relative rotational motion between the two, allowing the hole saw to neatly cut the chalk circle out of the floor of the merry go round.
"Whoosh", went the point.
Really, you think you had a viable point?
Your “debunking” was debunked in the first sentence.
Yes, debunking by “whoosh”
Why don’t you get on board with all the scientists since Newton?
DREMPTY
“Obviously the chalk circle is not rotating on its own internal axis.”
Obviously, but then when a not rotating hole saw is placed against the chalk circle, it becomes less obvious, when relative motion between the hole saw and the chalk circle causes the hole saw to cut the chalk circle out of the merry go round.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1663843
Dunning-Kruger strikes again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Good of you to admit that, bob.
DREMPTY,
Problem is, I don’t think I am smarter than Newton, but apparently you do.
That’s why Dunning-Kruger.
If you say so, bob.
DREMPTY,
Either you are right or Newton was right.
Pick one.
Newton would have agreed that the chalk circle isn’t rotating on its own internal axis.
DREMPTY,
That’s because you picked a model Newton would not have thought of using or writing about.
He is on record, however, saying the Moon rotates on its axis once a month.
Still responding, bob?
DREMPTY,
All you have proved is that you can not follow an argument to its logical conclusion.
The Moon rotates on its axis, this is an observation.
If you say so, bob. If you say so.
Then I am sure Moon Dragon cranks are ready to share their numerical model of the motion of the Earth-Moon system, Puffman.
Alternatively, you can always do the Pole Dance Experiment.
No, the first sentence, bob. e.g.:
“bob proves that the merry-go-round is rotating”
That was all that was necessary to refute you.
DREMPTY,
Sorry but this statement is false
“bob proves that the merry-go-round is rotating
I did not prove that, that was an initial condition.
All you managed to prove was that the merry-go-round is rotating.
DREMPTY,
The merry go round is rotating, the hole saw is not.
Thus the hole saw can cut a hole in the merry go round.
Just like if the merry go round was stopped and the hole saw was rotating.
You deny my proof because you don’t understand it.
Yes, bob, all you prove is that the merry-go-round is rotating. Big whoop.
DREMPTY,
That’s where my argument started.
You seem to have difficulty following the argument or thickument if you prefer.
Too bad you lost your chalk circle, maybe you could draw another one, I’ll be glad to cut that one out too, with my not rotating hole saw.
You seem to have difficulty understanding that your thickument was refuted. Oh well. Not my problem.
DREMPTY,
Your merry go round, like your logic, is full of holes.
Sorry for your loss, bob.
DREMPTY,
The Moon rotates once every 27.3 days.
It’s not my loss, the facts themselves defeat you.
We were talking about a chalk circle on a merry-go-round, bob.
DREMPTY,
No we are not, the chalk circle is no longer on the merry go round.
It’s on the ground underneath the merry go round.
You sure did prove that the merry-go-round is rotating…and you proved nothing more than that.
DREMPTY,
Your failure to understand that the merry go round is rotating and the hole saw is not is an indication of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
There’s nothing I don’t understand about your thickument, bob. That’s how I know it doesn’t prove the chalk circle is rotating on its own internal axis. All it proves is that the merry-go-round is rotating.
DREMPTY,
Tell me how a drill works.
You seem extremely unfamiliar with the way a drill works.
Sure, bob.
DREMPTY,
Refusing to answer?
Merry go round is rotating, hole saw is not (a hole saw drills holes), so relative rotary motion between the two, so the hole saw drills a hole around the chalk circle.
Bam, the chalk circle hits the floor, because the chalk circle is rotating on its internal (to the chalk circle) axis.
How many times is bob going to repeat his refuted argument?
DREMPTY,
Until you actually refute it.
You have failed to do so.
Your cult refuses to use the scientific method.
Egg on your face, you big disgrace
It was annihilated in a single sentence, bob. However, we can each sit here saying we’ve refuted the other for the rest of our lives…that achieves nothing. It’s up to the readers (if there are any) to decide.
There’s a frame in which bob is correct and a frame in which DREMT is correct. Both are correct at the same time!
Go away, Ball4.
Solar wind
speed: 314.4 km/sec
density: 6.55 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 26 Apr 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 196
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 167 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.94×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.5% Low
14 numbered spots. 4 are leaving to farside. None are yet, coming from farside
Solar wind
speed: 405.0 km/sec
density: 1.39 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 27 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 154
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 153 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.70×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.2% Low
11 numbered spot. Yet to be numbered spot coming from farside.
A spot or two will leave to farside within a day.
Solar wind
speed: 410.6 km/sec
density: 4.24 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 28 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 126
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 153 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.79×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.0% Low
9 numbered spots. The spot coming from farside was numbered, 3660.
No spots are coming from farside, yet. There two [a pair] of tiny spots not numbered heading to midway point of nearside, they could grow and be numbered. A spot or two may go to farside within day, in about 2 days, a total of 5 will go to farside.
Oh, 3654, grew a lot, and there are 3 moderate to large spots – which might have new number spot or two added {not sure about rule how these get more numbered spots added- or, 3654 growing/changing}.
Solar wind
speed: 488.6 km/sec
density: 0.02 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 29 Apr 24
Sunspot number: 119
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 140 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.72×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.5% Low
8 numbered spots, 1 spot not numbered yet coming from farside.
4 numbered spot going to farside in a day
This Will Be My Most Disliked Video On YouTube | Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpvd9FensT8
So, apparently a space cadet, and global warming cargo cultist, with what appear an excessively large amount of faith in governments.
But he is aware [to some degree] that we in one coldest ages on Earth. But he thinks 2 billion years ago was colder, or believes Earth has had snowball global climate.
Why does he believe in a snowball Earth?
It seems the evidence is related to glaciers being in the tropics.
We of course presently have glaciers in the tropics. All that is needed is high elevation. What is needed evidence of global ice sheets.
He is aware that we going to return to glaciation period, but he worried we will less sheets, than, last time??
If we had as much as we had 20,000 years ago, it could count as a problem, maybe.
Last time, CO2 levels got close to extinction low levels of global CO2. And around the coldest Earth has ever been, if you disregard then flimsy evident of a snowball globle climate about a time which according to what he indicated, was 2 billion years ago.
Your last paragraph illustrates a complete lack of understanding of what happened.
These snowball earth periods BEGAN with extremely LOW CO2 levels.
But the CO2 was hidden by the ice from the earth’s surface, so was not a b s o r b e d by terrestrial processes.
So CO2 escaping from volcanoes caused atmospheric CO2 levels to very slowly rise, but over millions of years, because it wasn’t being removed from the atmosphere.
When it reached today’s levels, the resulting greenhouse effect was nowhere enough to cancel out the extreme ice-albedo effect caused by the snowball earth.
So the ice remained, and CO2 levels continued to slowly rise.
It was only when concentrations reached the levels around those you are talking about that it was sufficient to cancel out the ice-albedo effect and start melting the ice. This happened relatively quickly (compared to the length of the snowball earth period).
And when the ice finally melted, the ice-albedo effect was gone, leaving behind elevated CO2 concentrations, and the earth went straight into a HOTHOUSE earth situation.
You guys NEVER consider HYSTERESIS. I doubt you’ve ever heard of it. (Gordon will show up now and try to provide an irrelevant discussion about hysteresis associated with transformers, ignorant of the fact that hysteresis is a more general concept.)
“The last time CO2 levels were 2000 ppm plus” was a time window that partially overlapped the end of the snowball earth, not a feature of the entire snowball earth period. A long overlap when measured in human lifetimes, but very short in comparison to the entire snowball earth period.
(BTW – I don’t watch this guy, for the reason that he doesn’t provide sources in his video description, merely self-promotion, and also has not given any indication that I am aware of of any qualifications.)
–What was the CO2 concentration 20000 years ago?
The concentration was as low as 180 parts per million (ppm) in the coldest part of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago. Around 10,000 years later, when the concentration increased to 280ppm, that ice age came to an end.–
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/what-ancient-climates-tell-us-about-high-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-in-earths-atmosphere.php
180 ppm is near extintion level
You didn’t make it clear what you meant by “extinction level”. You need to say whether you mean high or low. You referred to the snowball earth, and then you said “last time”. As you didn’t say the last time for WHAT, it had to be inferred that you meant the last time for a snowball earth. You also didn’t make clear what you meant by “extinction level”. Are you referring to humans? All life? a mass extinction of species that would be noticeable in the geographical record. And where would I find reference to this “extinction level” for CO2? You really need to express yourself MUCH more clearly. Are you a native English speaker?
Nevertheless, my comment is relevant to all those deniers who state that the highest levels of CO2 have occurred within cold periods. Are you one of those?
Of course, some call glaciation periods “ice ages”.
We in interglacial period within a 33.9 million year old Ice Age.
And this Ice Age is called the late Cenozoic Ice Age.
There are 5 known Ice Ages {none of them the mythical snowball global climate]. And of the 5 known Ice Ages, the last couple million years of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age has arguably been the coldest period.
Or it’s commonly said the last Glacial Max is one of coldest known times in which Earth has ever had.
“You didnt make it clear what you meant by extinction level. ”
I linked to video given by space cadet who seems to also believe in the cargo cult of global warming.
And I commented on the video.
But the point was mainly the link to this video.
I rather the discussion be about the video.
Which was pretty good for someone who is cargo cult believer.
Of course glacial max did have fair amount of extinctions, the lack CO2, was not the main thing- or at least, is not generally cited as major cause numerous extinction.
More commonly trying blame on human activity, is commonly tried, as a possible cause.
What is the point of your first three sentences? Why do people feel the need to share information as though it is not already known.
Snowball earths are PARTS OF an ice age, specifically the tail end. The ice age itself is not a “snowball ice age”. And you have provided nothing but an assertion for your claim. It’s possible they were only “slushball earths”, but one thing that is certain is that you don’t have the knowledge to contradict the specialists.
The only place where “the last glacial Max is one of coldest known times which Earth has ever had” is “commonly said” is on denier blogs. You would struggle to find ANY scientist in this field who says that.
Ant, “specialists” in nonsense isn’t much. Beliefs ain’t science.
Thanks for debunking “god”. No science there.
But there’s no chance you’ll admit your lack of belief in this forum though is there cLInt? Too many god-botherers here for you to get offside with. Instead you’ll carefully step around that one.
You’re rambling incoherently again, Ant.
You understand everything I said.
SpaceX and NASA’s Costly Frontier: A Financial Black Hole or Fueling Our Future?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV7v5VA03wo
Marcus goes into why fund NASA.
Marcus is also space cadet and global warming cultist.
I would say a reason to fund NASA is it’s rather cheap to do, as compared to what other things, governments are wasting your dollars on.
It less money than US State Dept- which involves a lot clowns doing not much good in the world.
Or US military space is twice the budget cost as NASA.
I am not opposed to funding on Military Space, but it similar enough to State Dept, in it’s wasting money.
Whether State Dept, US military space or NASA, the main problem, is the time wasted. With NASA, we discover that there could be mineable on lunar pole in 1998, it now 2024, and we still haven’t explored the Lunar polar regions. All govt spending is like this, and much, much, worse.
Also I think we need to keep NASA. One reason is that Musk says, a lot people are going to die, exploring Mars. And I think having NASA, will tend to lower the amount of deaths, exploring Mars.
Or one can complain that NASA is overly cautious. But there is some need to be overly cautious- even if it’s excessive.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The fact is – and yes, it’s a fact – that using anomaly values helps eliminate many things that are irrelevant to climate change, and that makes us able to measure climate change with far more correctness and precision. Anyone who tells you different, is just plain wrong.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/07/29/why-use-temperature-anomaly/
And that includes little guys hidden under trench coats.
It boggles the mind how anyone could actually suggest that there is some flaw in taking anomalies.
It seems their desire is to blur the baseline for the sole purpose of making it impossible to see any change.
It is analogous to a pharmaceutical company advertising that “90% of individuals recovered from the disease after taking our drug”, and failing to note that 98% of those who didn’t take the drug recovered.
I don’t agree.
No amount of averaging will make the data anymore accurate. If the measurements taken are inaccurate, then any resulting averages will be inaccurate, as well. The Central Limit Theorem will not apply.
In any situation, averages of averages is quite silly. I’ll illustrate with an example:
https://i.postimg.cc/zvcNTFZw/Screen-Shot-2024-04-26-at-10-40-40-PM.png
As you can see, this month is, for the most part, what you’d expect for the beginning of summer in my region. However, on the 14th of the month, 0.5 inches of snow fell. This is the latest spring snowfall throughout this station’s record, which dates back to late 1974.
But that detail gets omitted when the monthly mean is calculated from a 30-year average, which says the month was anomalously warm. Does that make sense?
I’m not sure whether you were addressing my comment in Richard’s thread or upthread. But regardless, both anomalies and monthly averages, evaluated seasonally or simply monthly in a time series, are silly mathematical constructs.
Tamino doesn’t seem to understand that ordinary least squares are unfit for the purpose of extrapolating a trend out into the future when the data is not linear to begin with. The standard error of the slope is always changing; there could be record-breaking cold 5 or 10 years from now, and it would significantly alter the trajectory of the slope.
Oops..
meant to reply below Willard.
doesn’t matter.
(1) Why would you look at the temperature record for an indication of snowfall? There are snowfall records for that.
(2) Why should a single day’s snowfall outweigh a whole month of generally above average temperatures?
(3) What on earth does this example have to do with “accuracy”?
(4) How are you judging whether or not the data is linear? Surely you don’t think a linear trend precludes day-to-day up-down variability.
(5) Surely you don’t believe that extrapolating a trend is actually a prediction of what temperatures to expect for any particular day or any particular month. All it indicates is that the variability we are currently getting about the trend value (measured with standard deviation) is expected to be roughly the same about the future trend value.
(6) “The standard error of the slope is always changing” is not a meaningful statement. You really need to look up what “standard error of the slope” actually is.
And one more thing.
(7) The central limit theorem states only that the sample mean distribution approaches a normal distribution. That applies whether or not there is a systemic error in the data.
1) Mainstream climate science suggests that the cold season is becoming shorter and warmer. The amount of snow and whether it snows, especially in early summer, is dependent on how cold the air mass is.
This is a good time to point out that the minimum reading on this date wasn’t even the lowest temperature at the time, because we know snowfall only occurs when the temperature is at or below 32F – another disadvantage of averaging.
2) My point was that this detail gets omitted by the average. Most months in the mid and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere are heavily influenced by extremes. It’s rare to find months with temperatures just consistently “above average”. If you want to comprehend change in climate, you also need to understand how these air masses are changing. Simply averaging them together won’t provide an accurate picture.
3) Tamino argued that anomalies offer a more precise and accurate means of measuring climate change. The accuracy of the original measurements determines the average.
4) Here’s what the IPCC has to say:
“The climate system is a coupled NON-LINEAR chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”
5) In a jungle, the dense canopy of trees limits the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor, leading to minimal fluctuations in temperature. The jungle floor remains hot and humid throughout the day. In contrast, a valley surrounded by mountains experiences more variable weather due to wider range of temperature patterns, inversions, and sunlight exposure.
The main point being is that the rate of temperature change over time is not continuous throughout the system. Attempting to track it collectively, globally or even regionally, is a futile endeavor.
6) Why?
7) One critical assumption of the CLT is that the measurements are independent and identically distributed. Measurements with varying degrees of accuracy violate the identically distributed aspect.
(1) Again … snowfall can be analysed separately. Average temperatures tell you one thing, snowfall tells you another. If that really interests you then you look at the two records in tandem.
(2) Again, you can study anything you want about climate by looking at enough records. And that is what climate scientists do. There are countless scientists who analyse regional climate and snowfall and all other aspects of climate. It is NOT being ignored.
(3) I don’t think you understand what accuracy is. In any data set, almost ALL readings are inaccurate. When you take enough readings, the random errors in measurement cancel, leaving the average plus any systemic error. I’ll have your proof please that there is a systemic error in the measurements.
(4) … which is exactly what I described in (5).
(5) … meaningless story to cover over the fact you already dealt with this in (4)
(6) The standard error in the slope IS a measure of the variability in the gradient. You were describing variability in the gradient, not a change in the variability of the gradient.
(7) IID has NOTHING to do with “accuracy” of the data. You’ve just made that up. If you knew what you were talking about you would have stated whether it violated i or i.d. And you STILL have not identified any systemic error in the data anyway.
1) The main point was that a monthly average is an inaccurate descriptor of weather over a month.
https://i.postimg.cc/sxSym67C/Screen-Shot-2024-04-27-at-8-36-26-PM.png
The link above illustrates my point. It is the month I could find in this station’s record with the most volatile conditions possible. It is a month of polar opposites: anomalous warmth for most of the month and anomalous cold at the end, both approaching record territory. A monthly average cannot describe that well, as they almost cancel each other out. The month deviates a little less than a degree above the current 30-year baseline.
3) You are incorrect. The purpose of collecting samples of temperature readings and averaging them is to smooth variability long term and track energy uptake. If your station is located in a desert, then the surrounding sand will impact the values because it retains and gradually releases heat over time due to its thermal inertia. Regular sandstorms, which vary in intensity and frequency, will alter the environmental parameters by redistributing sand across the landscape, changing the composition of surface materials and modifying heat retention properties. That is a deterministic variable, not random nor systematic. The condition of repeatability, which has to be followed in any observational study, is abandoned.
5) The main point was that it makes no sense to track temperature in the same intervals (hours, days, months, years).
6) No, I wasn’t.
7) Regarding identical distribution, refer to #3.
And there is plenty of evidence for systematic error: NOAA applies adjustments to attempt to account for the well-known biases like station movements, instrument change from LiG to ASOS, TOBS, and UHI.
Some lesser known ones include but are not limited to calibration drift, wildlife interactions with the instrument, and grass changing from green in the summer to brown in the winter.
Changing composition of grass is actually deterministic, not systematic.
(1) As I said, average temperature is not the only thing available, and your complaint is equivalent to being told how much you have in each of your bank accounts and then complaining that the amount in one account doesn’t give you information about the others.
(3) Your comment has no connection to what I was talking about.
(6) That is EXACTLY what you were doing. The standard error of the slope is always changing; there could be record-breaking cold 5 or 10 years from now, and it would significantly alter the trajectory of the slope. You claimed that the standard error is changing, then “supported” it by stating that the slope itself is changing.
(7) Adjustments are not systemic errors. They are CORRECTIONS for systemic errors. And why mention NOAA. You do know that UAH applies adjustments too, right?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1663892
Anything from Tamino is an alarmist lie.
One problem with anomalies is the utter exaggeration they give to the vertical axis, People think a 1C warming is major and that’s what climate alarm is based on.
Yeah, nice story Gordon. Perhaps one day you will provide some support for these thoughts that brew inside your head.
Antonin Qwerty
Here is a comparison of UAH’s absolute time series for LT, compared with the anomalies generated out of it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zMrnVDsGrI63WWKdlKmt2ez_RWvNpyag/view
Of course: in this chart, the absolute data was displaced; here, by its mean value within 1991-2020. Otherwise, anomalies and absolutes would be distant by over 260 K and we wouldn’t see anything valuable either.
There is no reason at all not to show the anomalies in the same scale as is their absolute source, exactly as made by Roy Spencer every month.
*
The fundamental difference between ignorant simpletons like Robertson and knowledgeable people like Tamino is that if, for example, there was something wrong with the historical calculations of Moon’s spin, Tamino would give us a scientific explanation of what was wrong, rather than screaming nonsense.
A couple of questions:
(1) Where do you get absolute UAH temperature data from? I was aware of a site a few years ago which was shut down.
(2) You say Dr Spencer shows absolute temperatures on his graph each month. Where? I don’t see them. Only monthly anomalies and the 13-month running average.
Bindi, if you knew anything about orbital motion you would have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, rather than screaming nonsense.
Antonin Qwerty
A couple of answers…
(1) Where do you get absolute UAH temperature data from?
It isn’t published.
One has to reconstruct it in a way inverse to anomaly construction.
UAH publishes its 2.5 degree grid data for all four observed layers (lt, mt, tp, ls) in this directory:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
For each of the four layers, there is
– a yearly sequence of time series files containing, for each month, a grid with anomalies for 9,504 grid cells (the three bottommost resp. topmost latitude bands don’t contain valid data);
– a climatology file containing a 12-month grid sequence with, for each of the 9,504 grid cells, the average of the original absolute temperatures of the corresponding month within the reference period (currently: 1991-2020).
By adding, in each year and each month and each grid cell, the climatology data for the grid cell in the corresponding month to the anomaly grid cell, you finally obtain the absolute value for the grid cell in the month.
This means in fact that each grid cell has its own 12-month baseline – just as each surface station also has its own baseline out of which the station’s anomaly values are locally computed.
*
In Roy Spencer’s February temperature thread (March 3, 2024 at 9:05 AM) you can read the following nonsense:
” The absolutes are more important because they are the ones that get averaged.
This is wrong. Not the absolute values are averaged when constructing anomaly-based time series; the anomalies are instead.
Simply because it makes no sense to average absolute temperatures at sea level together with those measured at 2000 meter altitude, or absolute temperatures in the Tropics with those measured in the Poles.
**
(2) Apologies for having written
” There is no reason at all not to show the anomalies in the same scale as is their absolute source, exactly as made by Roy Spencer every month. ”
which could of course be misunderstood.
I meant here on the one hand the scale of the source in the chart I presented above, and on the other hand the scale of the anomalies in Roy Spencer’s chart.
Sorry.
Taking ‘lt’ as example, the yearly files with 12 grid months are
tltmonamg.1978_6.0
till
tltmonamg.2024_6.0
and the climatology file is
tltmonacg_6.0
Not surprisingly, the yearly files and the climatology file have exactly the same structure.
And the data for all four atmospheric layers have also the same overall structure.
Sorry Bindidon, I’ve got into the habit of forgetting to thank after having my questions are answered. So thanks for this answer, and also for the one a couple of days ago.
Antonin Qwerty
No need for you to thank me – even if it’s welcome :–)
1) Then why not just focus on those parameters and discard averaging?
3) You wrote:
“When you take enough readings, the random errors in measurement cancel, leaving the average plus any systemic error.”
I wanted to provide some specific context. It’s unlikely that even the random errors cancel out due to the presence of other sources of error.
6) They’re both relevant. There is always variability with the estimated slope coefficient. Please do not nitpick.
7) You asked me for evidence of systematic errors.
Yes, I do know. The adjustments are an unintended source of uncertainty because any corrections for systematic errors have to be applied to each measurement to be effective.
8. Walter R. Hogle is propagating nonsense again:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/propagation-of-nonsense-part-ii/
Sorry, but the data we have is totally unfit for the purpose.
The noise is impossible to separate from the measurement.
Walter R. Hogle likes to say stuff that sounds profound, but doesnt mean anything.
Willard,
Please stop tr0lling.
Walter R. Hogle borrows Graham D. Warner‘s bullying tactic.
Willard,
I think it’s good-spirited of you to help Ant in his time of need. Please offer a science-based rebuttal. My points are not about the general circulation models and their physical resemblance to reality.
Walter R. Hogle uses a verboten word.
Is Graham D. Warner the other kid under the trench coat?
Willard is a monkey.
It’s so easy to debunk the cult children.
Above, to support his false beliefs, bob has to declare everything is spinning! He’s just admitting, again, that he doesn’t understand any of this.
Just like Ant….
While you do no more than declare that the moon is not spinning …
Ant, that is an example of either your dishonesty or your incompetence.
Or both….
Or neither.
Good to see you’ve finally learned the difference between “ant” and “ark”. Are you usually that slow?
There’s not much difference between you cult children.
But Ark did manage to get something right, once….
So he’s one up on you.
Now you’ve looped back to where you started, Ant.
That is an example of either your dishonesty or your incompetence.
Or both….
Me:
Where I started:
“While you do no more than declare that the moon is not spinning “
Where I finished:
“So hes one up on you.”
No relation between those comments.
.
.
You:
Where you started:
“that is an example of either your dishonesty or your incompetence. Or both.”
Where you finished:
“That is an example of either your dishonesty or your incompetence. Or both.”
.
.
“Now youve looped back to where you started.”
You really need to practise getting those pronouns right, cLInt:
“You” = “I”
But I know you people have difficulty with pronouns.
Clint has proved the Moon is not spinning, we are waiting for the spinners to prove it can while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
Talk and philosophy is not proof.
He has done no such thing.
I have proved that if the moon is not spinning then neither is the earth, and if the earth is spinning then so is the moon. You have chosen to ignore that.
Sorry Ant, but Earth both orbits and spins.
Moon only orbits.
You won’t understand this, ever. I only correct you so you don’t confuse lurkers.
And as I said, you are claiming that by ASSERTION. You refused to engage with my argument, because you know what it means for yours.
And you are the only lurker here.
Wrong Ant. Seriously WRONG.
I’ve supplied plenty of science to debunk your false belief that Moon spins. You either don’t understand it, or deny what you understand. Your effort is on your cult tactics, like false accusations, insults, and kiddie nonsense like altering my name.
You STILL have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
You’ve got NOTHING.
The statement “you refused to engage with MY argument” is 100% correct.
And the fact that the Moon is spinning is an observation.
By people with more brains than Clint.
Even if they are in a cult, that doesn’t mean their science is wrong.
It’s a pretty big cult, Clint is butt sore because he can’t get in.
We can tell that Moon is NOT spinning because if it were, we should see all sides of it from Earth. Just as Sun “sees” all sides of Earth, as it spins.
Earth both spins and orbits. Moon only orbits.
bob is in a cult that has many false beliefs. Reality debunks those false beliefs. That’s why bob hates reality.
Clint,
The Moon is observed to rotate once every 27.3 days.
The exact speed necessary to keep one side generally facing towards the Earth.
Clint sitting in a geostationary satellite:
“We can tell that the earth is NOT spinning because if it were, we should see all sides of it from this satellite.”
Now Ant is not only taking my words out-of-context, he’s actually making them up!
He’s soooooo desperate.
I was merely assuming that your “thinking” is consistent. I guess you just admitted to the fact it is not.
Riddle me this, Puffman –
https://impact.ed.ac.uk/research/digital-data-ai/a-new-spin-on-the-universe/
Why do you spend your time on a science blog when obviously you never take any interest in it?
Looks like silly willy found another link he can’t understand.
I predicted the cult would never be able to understand this Moon issue, and they continue to prove me right.
I can take it.
Yea, but you are the only one flaky enough to claim bananas and strawberries are part of the atmosphere.
How’s that working out for you?
from wee willy’s sci-fi piece …
“The team analysed computer-generated Universes with properties closely resembling the observed Universe, produced by supercomputers running for many months.
From this constellation of data, the team was able to identify more than 30 thousand filaments, each measuring more than 20 million light-years in length. Each filament typically connected a pair of galaxies in the simulation and, by aligning the positions of these, the team was able to determine that these intergalactic filaments were spinning”.
***
Let’s get this straight, these dweebs analyzed data from a ***MODEL*** of the universe and formed scientific conclusions.
Yeah, right.
I am glad wee willy is an alarmist, he proves day after day what a load of ijits they are.
Poor bob.
He doesn’t even try to fake it anymore. He’s lost it completely.
Lest anyone be confused, this is what Clint said
“Even strawberries and bananas would be heating the planet. bob just continues to display his ignorance of the relevant physics.”
bob has to take my words out-on-context because he has NOTHING.
(The funny thing is that quote was referring to the cult’s GHE nonsense. If CO2 were able to warm Earth’s 288K surface, then so would strawberries and bananas. As usual, the science is WAY over poor bob’s head.)
Clint can’t tell the difference between the atmosphere and fruit.
Not a lot going on in that brain of his.
My answer to Fermi paradox, is that Sol is not interesting/useful.
Or it’s bad place, if you want to approach light speeds and it’s a place where one “needs” to approach light speeds [if you want to go anywhere].
So, Sol is bad place to get to say 1/4 the speed of light {or more} and if you in Sol and want to go to a 1/4 the speed of light, then there “needs” to be some value to do this. What could be valuable is some kind of exotic material- like a small black hole or something like that.
So our sun is no good, Jupiter is almost as useful. And there lots of things better than Jupiter [or our sole star]. Having two stars could be a lot better than one. And two or more stars are fairly common.
Of course if we had a black hole, our solar system would be worth going to. A Neutron star could be useful, also- though having two neutron stars would better than one.
I also think living closer to galactic core, is better. Of course it could be more dangerous, also, but I tend to think if there is alien civilization, the super majority would be a lot closer to the core.
And then there aspect that even out here, star systems do get a lot closer to Sol, and right now closest is +4 lightyears. Whereas in our past, they have less than lightyear away from us.
So, we in wrong place and wrong time.
gb…there is no way to measure the exact distance to stars. There is no mechanism available to measure exactly how long it takes for light emitted by a star to reach Earth. We also have little experience with how fast a craft can move in real space.
Why should there be a limit on speed if there is nothing opposing a mass? The only limit should be a limit imposed on the craft for safety reasons. Even a small rock moving at considerable speed, while colliding with a spacecraft, would cause an ever-increasing damage as the craft moved faster.
Let’s reach Mars first then wonder about straying farther.
— Gordon Robertson says:
April 27, 2024 at 5:35 PM
gbthere is no way to measure the exact distance to stars. There is no mechanism available to measure exactly how long it takes for light emitted by a star to reach Earth. We also have little experience with how fast a craft can move in real space. —
Well, Parker Solar probe, is fastest spacecraft, we have got. It goes fastest near the sun and slower when it gets out to Venus distance:
”
Current Records Set By Parker Solar Probe
Fastest Speed: 635,274 kph on Sep 27, 2023, 23:29 UTC
Closest Approach: 7,259,496 km on Sep 27, 2023, 23:29 UTC
”
635,274 kph / 3600 seconds is 176.465 km/sec.
Earth travel around 30 km/sec, Venus about 35 km/sec. And when Parker Solar probe is at Venus distance it’s going slower than Venus.
Currently: 72,478 kph {divide by 3600 = 20.132777778 km/sec} and it’s Now: Distance from Sun Surface: 100,281,307 km
–Aphelion: May 15, 2024, 03:04 UTC
17 days 3 hr 1 min
Your current UTC time: 2024-04-28T00:03:09.718Z–
So it’s close to Venus distance, and when at it’s furthest distance from Sun it will be going slower.
Since going slower, it spends most of it’s time closer to Venus, and as it falls towards sun it goes faster and faster, and at closest point to Sun it reaches the highest speed. And as goes back to Venus distance, it goes slower and slower.
If want to leave our solar system {fast} you have rocket thrust around the time going the fastest. Not a large amount to thrust would put Parker Solar Probe well past Jupiter, in fairly short period of time.
“Why should there be a limit on speed if there is nothing opposing a mass?”
Rockets throw mass. The faster mass is thrown the more efficient the rocket is at accelerating. One can also beam energy and bounce the energy, or use solar sails which bounce photons. But if just keeping with rockets, nuclear rockets can heat mass to highest temperature and thereby be most efficient. So, got something like a Nuclear Orion
or saltwater rocket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket
Or numerous kinds of potential nuclear fusion rockets.
Anyhow, I kind of like the nuclear saltwater rocket which might be regarded as very dangerous to “develop”- and would require very serious madmen to try it.
But if had the right star systems, you might just need “normal” chemical rockets.
Well there is parallax and Cepheid variable stars, that are used to calculate the distance to stars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable
To make it simple.
Sun’s escape velocity is about 600 km/sec.
A Neutron stars escape velocity is about 150,000 km/sec {half the speed of light].
A problem with that is the lack of time to add velocity from your
starship. Or without any velocity added, you stay within the system.
This a where having 2 or more neutron stars helps a lot.
But there is a lot between Sol and a two neutron star system- or a system with a black hole.
Ie, our sun with a hot Jupiter type planet {near it} could be quite an improvement. But also, many single stars would a lot better than Sol.
Also forget to mention Ion engines, the rocket engine of Star Trek,
which what you mainly need is a lot electrical power {made on ship or beamed to the ship].
Parker Solar Probe uses solar panels which are cooled so can withstand the heat of sunlight {cooled with water}. So it could something like that, cooled solar panels using ion engines.
–A molecule found by Rosetta on Comet 67P/C-G proves discovering life on exoplanets will not be easy–
April 27, 2024 12:50 pm Robert Zimmerman
https://behindtheblack.com/
“The uncertainty of science: Scientists have long assumed that the molecule dimethyl sulfide (DMS) is an excellent biosignature of life, since it is only produced by life here on Earth. When they discovered it in the atmosphere of an exoplanet last year many thought, especially in the media, that it proved that life existed on that exoplanet.
A scientist who had worked on the Rosetta mission to the Comet 67P/C-G thought otherwise, that DMS was not a reliable biosignature and quickly proved it.” {gives link}.
New Document Release Reveals Greens Engaging in Fraud to Deceive Ministers and Push German Nuclear Phase-Out
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/27/new-document-release-reveals-greens-engaging-in-fraud-to-deceive-ministers-and-push-german-nuclear-phase-out/
“All of our countries are crazy in various ways, but when it comes to energy policy Germany is an undisputed champion of crazy.”
I always thought so, but it seems to me Germany is more transparent about the crazy stuff they do. So Germany could be, about the same or even less crazy than some countries.
Earlier on, some fanatical GHE cultist wrote –
“These snowball earth periods BEGAN with extremely LOW CO2 levels.”
Complete nonsense. There have never been any “snowball earth”s, and the believers cannot even define this bizarre term.
The nutters seem to believe that the Earth cooled from a molten state, froze, heated up again, cooled (or maybe froze), and that this magical cycle repeated itself. A figment of the overheated imaginations of people like Carl Sagan, who just refused to believe that the Earth may have not been created at absolute zero, or thereabouts.
The same nutters believe in the existence of a “greenhouse effect”, which, once again, cannot be described!
All good for a laugh, if nothing else. No GHE. The Earth’s surface has cooled to its present temperature, and the interior itself continues to cool. The outer mantle (maybe 25 km below your feet) is around 1000 C, not quite white hot. It just gets hotter the further in you go.
A strange snowball, with a white hot center, which freezes and thaws on command, while remaining glowing inside.
Try this
https://www.pnas.org/post/poast/origin-great-unconformity
Though you need to put a d and a c in the right spot, like somewhere in poast to spell a word meaning an internet presentation.
Flynn believes (or makes out that he believes) that the surface temperature of the earth is determined by the temperature of the deep interior, and/or vice versa.
He doesn’t seem to understand that the surface receives about 5000 times as much energy from above than from below, and that the interior has been contributing this little for about the last 3.5 to 4 billion years, way before any ice age is mentioned.
In reverse, below about 10 metres there is no measureable seasonal change in temperature.
He also believes that active volcanoes and thermal vents cover a significant enough fraction of the earth’s surface to change this picture.
“The Roaring Forties are strong westerly winds that occur in the Southern Hemisphere, generally between the latitudes of 40 and 50 south. The strong eastward air currents are caused by the combination of air being displaced from the Equator towards the South Pole, Earth’s rotation, and the scarcity of landmasses to serve as windbreaks at those latitudes. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Forties
“Similar but even stronger conditions that occur at more southerly latitudes are called the Furious Fifties and the Shrieking or Screaming Sixties.”
gb…don’t forget the increasing temperature differential as one goes north or south toward the Poles.
bob found another link he can’t understand.
The “geologic record” is just one more hoax that will someday be exposed, just as “Moon spin” and the bogus GHE are now being exposed.
Clint,
Are you the one that will expose the hoax.
Just like you are exposing the GHE hoax and the Moon spins hoax.
Dunning-Kruger strikes again.
I know I’ve won when bob drags out the D-K nonsense. (He’s got NOTHING.)
Another victory for reality….
Right Clint,
All the science you deny could fill the Library of Congress.
Wrong again, bob.
I don’t deny science. I deny cult beliefs.
You don’t know the difference.
Clint,
Your cult thinks the atmosphere is full of bananas and strawberries.
more of Binny’s brain-deficit logic…
“[Roy] The absolutes are more important because they are the ones that get averaged.
[Binny]This is wrong. Not the absolute values are averaged when constructing anomaly-based time series; the anomalies are instead.
Simply because it makes no sense to average absolute temperatures at sea level together with those measured at 2000 meter altitude, or absolute temperatures in the Tropics with those measured in the Poles”.
***
Duh!!! It makes no sense??? That is alarmist drivel if I have ever heard it. If you cannot include absolute extremes what kind of average do you have?
He just purposefully misquoted me from an old thread. Binny complains endlessly about being discredited but has no problem doing it to others.
I did not say that we should average absolutes from two different locations around the world. I was talking about percentiles and how we needed the most detailed information possible. Alarmists just nitpick what you write and filter out the primary message.
Funny how that’s precisely what I’ve been copping from you guys, must notably Clint.
Ant, quit whining. It’s not my fault you can’t stand reality.
Ant,
I won. You lost.
A self-declaring “winner”. Typical effing denier. Don’t complain about others if you’re going to play those tr011ing games.
> I was talking about percentiles and how we needed the most detailed information possible.
Walter R. Hogle likes to say stuff that sounds profound, but doesnt mean anything.
Robertson
” [Roy] The absolutes are more important because they are the ones that get averaged. ”
You are as always the ignoramus who doesn’t understand anything, and above all misquotes anything.
Who is ‘Roy’ here, Robertson? I never quoted any ‘Roy’.
*
It came from Hogle, who isn’t even brave enough to admit that he meant that sentence exactly the way anyone could read and understand it, and is now suddenly backtracking and a posteriori trying to cover his own words up with some percentile pseudo-arguments.
*
And by the way, Robertson: if you mean with ‘Roy’ Roy Spencer, be sure that he never would support Hogle’s nonsense: nowhere would Mr Spencer mix absolute tropospheric temperatures coming from Tropics and Poles, and fabricate anomalies out of such a mix.
No, I was clearly referring to regional weather.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1637263
No chance for you to kid the blog, Hogle.
Anyone having followed your stuff in the recent threads perfectly knows that you were ranting all the time against averages and anomalies, and that the sentence above is 100% on par with all what you told before.
Liar.
Straight from your quote…
“In Roy Spencers February temperature thread (March 3, 2024 at 9:05 AM) you can read the following nonsense:
The absolutes are more important because they are the ones that get averaged.
This is wrong”.
***
Your statement implies that Roy said that in his February temperature thread.
Mr. Asshat suggests that what is being said in Roy’s comment section (“Roy’s thread”) somehow implicates Roy.
Imagine if that were true, and consider that he has been exhibiting his crankiness here daily for more than a decade.
Hogle
You can name me a liar as often as you want: that won’t change anything in how your superficial stuff appears on this blog.
*
This thread will be soon outdated.
For this reason, I delay my technical response to your gullible rendition of Watts’ technically and scientifically incomprehensible ‘encroach’ allegations:
” Anomalies don’t tell anything about the quality of data; they’re just deviations from a baseline. Anthony Watts showed us that the stations in CO-OP are 96% corrupted by artificial encroaches; we know actual temperatures, rather than anomalies, are affected, specifically nighttime temperatures. That shows how unhelpful anomalies are: they don’t even represent the conditions of the real world. ”
With two comparisons:
(1) TMIN and TMAX for both anomalies AND absolutes of single stations (Jan 2011-Dec 2023)
– GHCN daily’s station Anchorage Intl AP
compared to
– USCRN station Kenai 29 ENE
(2) TMEAN for both anomalies AND absolutes over the whole CONUS (Dec 1978-Dec 2023)
– all available USHCN stations
compared to
– UAH 6.0 LT over CONUS (for which there are unfortunately as we all know NO TMIN/TMAX time series).
*
I’m already now 100% sure however that you will find something to discredit all that, just like ‘researcher’ Robertson discredits anything that doesn’t fit his egomaniacal narrative.
ark…”I have proved that if the moon is not spinning then neither is the earth, and if the earth is spinning then so is the moon. You have chosen to ignore that”.
***
I am just about to disprove you.
The Earth currently orbits while rotating 365 times. During the rotations, all sides of the Earth face the Sun 365 times.
Let’s reduce its rotations to twice per orbit. All of its sides now faces the Sun twice per year. Reduce the rotations to one rotation per orbit, meaning all sides of the Earth face the Sun during one orbit.
Explain how that is the same as the Moon, which has only one side facing the Earth per orbit.
Now address to the right person.
(The earth rotates 360 degrees on its axis in 23 hrs 56 minutes. That is 366.25 times a year.)
alarmist nyms look all the same to me.
You have replied with the Mother of All Red-Herring replies, obviously to disregard the logic in my reply. Address that logic. The Earth which does rotate on a local axis, does not show the same side to the Sun even when its rotation is once per orbit.
Gordon,
You have to try it yourself.
Rotating something twice around its axis while revolving once around another object has one point facing the center object once per two revolutions,
Two rotations gives one day.
Assuming the two motions are prograde, and not retrograde. If the earth’s rotation were retrograde then there would be 367.25 days in a year for the same rate of rotation.
My UAH guesstimate for April: +0.65
UAH Global will definitely be lower. ENSO 3.4 (CDAS) just dropped below 0.5, and the PV has re-established at South Pole. A drop to +0.65 would mean the remnants of the HTE are definitely gone.
I would go with a more modest drop in UAH, maybe into a range — 0.75 to 0.9. We’ll see….
Expect temps to continue to drop in the coming months as ENSO falls into a La Niña.
The two data sets I refer to both indicate around +0.65. But they indicated around +0.7 last month, yet UAH gave a record, so who knows.
And all the drop is coming from the poles. The non-polar anomaly is having its highest month of the year.
Although a La Nina is likely, it is absolutely not a certainty.
The inane “rotate about an axis” discussion is doomed to continue on an endless loop because people can’t even agree on a simple, testable definition of “rotate about an axis” that can then be applied to calculate basic parameters like angular momentum (in a way that agrees with fundamental concepts like conservation angular momentum). (E.g. does the earth rotate on its axis 365.25 or 366.25 times per year?)
One common definition would be something like:
Choose an axis (ie a line through space). A particle is rotating about that axis if:
a) it maintains a constant distance from that axis.
b) it changes orientation relative to that line as measured in an inertial reference frame (ie measured relative to ‘the fixed stars’).
The definition is simple. It is easy to apply. Anyone else is welcome propose a refinement — or a completely different definition.
NOTE1: the axis in question itself can be undergoing rather complicated motion. Earth’s axis is precessing, as well as moving in an ellipse around the sun which is itself moving around the center of the Milky Way.
NOTE2: If you can’t provide your definition “rotation about an axis” then you can’t determine if an object is rotating about an axis, and you really don’t belong in a discussion about the topic.
This has been settled mathematically by Ftop_t, Tim. “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is movement as per the MOTL, not the MOTR. I don’t see that there’s any doubt about it, or any need for talk about definitions.
> This has been settled mathematically by Ftop_t,
Flop’s trick has been refuted so many times already.
If you say so, Little Willy.
DREMT says: “If you say so, Little Willy.”
That is basically my point. If every just “says so”, we can’t move forward. We can’t just say ‘someone sometime said something, and that settles it.’
Do you agree
a) with my definition?
b) have another definition to propose?
Pick (a) or (b). Or admit you have no meaningful definition of “rotation about an axis” and you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
There is no way forward until we all agree what “rotation about an axis” means.
Go with your definition, if you like, Tim. Rotation about two different axes (one external to the object and one internal) cannot possibly produce movement like the MOTL. Don’t take my word for it, though. Find an online transmographer and see for yourself.
For movement like the MOTL to be comprised of two motions, one of them must be curvilinear translation in a circle.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner recalls that he cannot win with Flop.
Perhaps he just decided that now was the time to spam the word transmographer.
Who knows?
Little Willy has already agreed, in the past, that my point 2) is correct. Quite why he would try to argue against it now, is anyone’s guess. Probably just bored.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
You’ve written comments that can only be interpreted as expressing agreement with my point 2). Not gaslighting, fact.
Folkerts comes to pervert the issue.
Earth both orbits and spins. Moon only orbits.
The simple ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbiting without spin”. So is Moon.
It’s just that simple.
Higher levels of verification, involving vectors, are too advanced for the cult children.
Clint, You are perverting the issue — in multiple ways!
First you are introducing new terms that people ALSO don’t agree on — “orbit” and “spin”. How do you propose to define each of these. And no cop outs like “it is obvious” since it clearly is not obvious to everyone in this discussion.
Then you claim both a ball-on-string and the moon are the same motion — “orbiting without spin”. And yet they are quite different. The ball moves in a circle and keeps one side exactly toward one point the center. The moon moves in an ellipse and only approximately keeps one side toward any point in the center.
If it is “just that simple” then what precisely is “orbiting with out spin” for an elliptical orbit. Bonus points if your answer conserves angular momentum.
Tim, there is NO evidence you understand ANY physics. Remember, you’re the one that started the “ice cubes boiling water” nonsense. Also remember your model of “orbiting without spin” failed drastically.
So, just for responsible adults, “spinning” is rotation about an axis through center of mass. “Orbiting” is making an elliptical path around a host body due to the resultant of two vectors, linear momentum and gravity.
In the ball-on-a-string model, the string models gravity. The ball keeps one side always facing the inside of its orbit, just like Moon.
… as observed from the surface of the Earth and, in the case of the ball, as observed by the ball twirler.
“So, just for responsible adults, spinning is rotation about an axis through center of mass. Orbiting is making an elliptical path around a host body due to the resultant of two vectors, linear momentum and gravity.”
Makes surprising sense.
Now he just has to apply these to the Moon. The Moon is orbiting, just as he defined.
And it is spinning, just as he defined. In the Moon case the spinning is around an axis tilted at 6.7 degrees, from the orbit normal. This rotational motion of the Moon is in a plane tilted at 6.7 degrees to the orbital plane.
Anyone suggesting that this axis must instead be through the Earth, would need to explain why the Moon’s COM is not moving in the 6.7 degree tilted plane.
As predicted, Nate cannot understand the simple ball-on-a-string.
He proves me right, again.
I can take it….
Rotation should be defined in a way that doesn’t cause motion that is not explainable with the available forces/torques.
Libration is PRECISELY explained as the effect of summing two rotations about non-parallel axes. Defining rotation as the deniers do requires you to find an extra oscillating force/torque, and no such animal exists.
It would be much better if the lunar spin deniers, instead of endlessly distracting with their silly pseudo-theories, could scientifically refute all the papers, reports and articles that I have mentioned here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
But none of them would ever make it.
Rotation about two different axes (one external to the object and one internal) cannot possibly produce movement like the MOTL. Don’t take my word for it, though. Find an online transmographer and see for yourself.
For movement like the MOTL to be comprised of two motions, one of them must be curvilinear translation in a circle.
Bindi, linking to nonsense that supports false beliefs from ancient astrology ain’t science.
Now, if you had a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, that would be science.
But, you don’t….
It would be much better if you understood even the slightest amount of physics and could speak for yourself. Then, you might understand the futility of rushing off to wannabee scientists who did not understand the physics either.
Nor were they interested. Not one of your sources has proved that the Moon rotates on a local axis. In fact, it seems none of them were interested since most of the papers you posted were about libration, not rotation.
cLInt
When a rigid body moves without rotating, along any path straight or curved, at any moment in time all parts of the body move at the same linear velocity (speed and direction).
DREMT: “Rotation about two different axes (one external to the object and one internal) cannot possibly produce movement like the MOTL.”
Yet again, how would you define “rotation about an axis”? With no definition, you cannot ‘definitively’ conclude anything!
Go with your definition, if you like, Tim. Rotation about two different axes (one external to the object and one internal) cannot possibly produce movement like the MOTL. Don’t take my word for it, though. Find an online transmographer and see for yourself.
For movement like the MOTL to be comprised of two motions, one of them must be curvilinear translation in a circle.
The transmographer argument has been refuted so many times already, and in so many ways. My favorite is that if Graham D. Warner was right, it would refute his Holy Madhavi.
More lies, from an obviously bored Little Willy.
As predicted, Graham D. Warner cannot understand a simple definition.
He proves me right, again.
I can take it…
Still more lies, from an obviously bored Little Willy.
tim…you are too confused about the fundamental principles of physics to contribute a meaningful argument. You admit you have no explanation for rotation and continue applying thought experiments in lieu of your inability to apply simple physics.
We are not talking about a particle rotating about an axis we are talking about a rigid sphere rotating about an axis. In that context, rotation is easy to define. If all the particles in the rigid sphere have an angular velocity/momentum about an axis through the sphere, the sphere is rotating about that axis.
In light of that, explain how the sphere can keep the same face pointed at an external axis while rotating as described. None of you spinners have even attempted that, obviously because you are all full of hot air ad lack the physics to attack the problem.
Gordon states: “If all the particles in the rigid sphere have an angular velocity/momentum about an axis through the sphere, the sphere is rotating about that axis.”
Yes! Exactly the same as my definition. All the particle in the rigid moon have the same angular velocity about an axis through the moon’s poles. They all move around that axis at a steady rate of 360 degrees per 27.3 days.
Thank you for agreeing the moon in rotating about its axis!
A body moving like the MOTL is changing orientation through 360 degrees all due to its rotation about an external axis. There is no change in orientation left to be due to rotation about an internal axis.
DREMPTY,
“A body moving like the MOTL is changing orientation through 360 degrees all due to its rotation about an external axis. There is no change in orientation left to be due to rotation about an internal axis.”
Yeah, right.
Actually, a body like the MOTL is not rotating around an external axis, so all the change in orientation must be due to rotation about an internal axis.
Incorrect, bob.
Yeah, Right, DREMPTY
The Moon is not rotating around an external axis, go aske an Astronomer for help.
Take a day trip to Cambridge, maybe someone there could help you.
Except with the real Moon, the rotation is around an axis tilted 6.7 degrees to the orbit axis.
If that rotation were around an axis through the Earth, then the whole orbital motion of the moon would have to be in a plane tilted at 6.7 degrees.
But it isnt.
That means the rotation can be ONLY around the COM of the Moon.
Who was talking about the real moon? Not me. I was talking about the topic of this thread, which was “rotation about an axis”. Everything I have said is correct.
Sorry Nate, but Moon does not have a rotational axis tilted at 6.7 degrees,
That belief comes from ancient astrology. It’s easily debunked with a coffee cup and a pencil.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Who was talking about the real moon?
[PUFFMAN] The simple ball-on-a-string is a model of orbiting without spin. So is Moon.
[ALSO PUFFMAN] The ball keeps one side always facing the inside of its orbit, just like Moon.
I wasn’t responding to Clint R, though.
Why can’t all these lunar spin deniers not understand that the Moon does NOT turn day after day on the same spatial path around Earth, hence neither ball-on-a-string nor MOTL/MOTR simpletonities can help in this discussion?
Day after day, the Moon shows us the same face +- wobblings due to the merely apparent, optical libration; but it is never on the same place.
And in order to discover the consequence of this, you need to observe a spot on the Moon during one year, and… be a crack in spherical trigonometry.
*
It’s really a pity that in Mayer’s treatise, the text is still perfect to read (by persons able to read 1750 German of course); but the trigonometry is really in a bad state, and hard to grasp.
Otherwise, I would have loved to write a piece of software reproducing step by step what Tobias Mayer made by hand 250 years ago.
*
I asked Steven Wepster, the University in Nuremberg, the Observatory in Hamburg and the German Tobias Mayer Society: they have all the same problem, too much work – for obtaining what else than further denial?
Nein danke – Non merci.
Bindi, you might consider the possibility that “the trigonometry is really in a bad state, and hard to grasp”, is because it’s WRONG.
Here’s an easy to remember rule: If something claims Moon is spinning, it’s WRONG.
… as observed from Earth.
–Earth’s magnetic field intermittently shielded us during cosmic ray influx 41,000 years ago
by Robert Schreiber
Berlin, Germany (SPX) Apr 22, 2024
Earth’s geomagnetic field, while generally shielding the planet from cosmic and solar radiation, experiences periods of significant fluctuation. Not only does the magnetic north shift from its geographically defined true north, but it also undergoes complete reversals. During such reversals, previously defined poles swap positions, causing a noticeable decrease in the magnetic field’s strength.–
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Earths_magnetic_field_intermittently_shielded_us_during_cosmic_ray_influx_41000_years_ago_999.html
” Her findings indicate a doubled production rate of beryllium-10 compared to present-day levels, signifying a substantial decrease in geomagnetic protection and consequently, higher cosmic ray penetration during the Laschamps excursion. Panovska further utilized both cosmogenic radionuclide and paleomagnetic data to reconstruct historical geomagnetic fields, revealing significant reductions in the Earth’s magnetic shielding.
This research not only charts historical geomagnetic fluctuations but also enhances understanding of potential future extreme events, aiding predictions of space climate impacts and their environmental consequences.”
ant…”Rotation should be defined in a way that doesnt cause motion that is not explainable with the available forces/torques.
Libration is PRECISELY explained as the effect of summing two rotations about non-parallel axes. Defining rotation as the deniers do requires you to find an extra oscillating force/torque, and no such animal exists”.
***
Ant…you are just as confused as Tim F about rotation. It’s not a matter of how it is defined, it is about what it is. With a rigid sphere like the Moon, a local rotation requires that all particles making up the rigid body have an angular speed/momentum about a local axis.
Given that all particles must have an angular momentum about an axis, how would you explain the Moon keeping the same face pointed at the Earth while rotating in that manner? It can’t. What you see is curvilinear translation without local rotation.
Libration is not defined as you claim. There are three types of libration and the one discussed most often is longitudinal libration. That means the Moon ***APPEARS*** to rotate a few degrees per orbit about a local axis.
No rotational torque is required because there is no rotation. That type of libration is due only to the change in view angle for an observer on Earth, created by the slightly elliptical orbit. If the orbit was purely circular, there would be no libration.
Allow me to repeat my comment above:
When a rigid body moves WITHOUT rotating along any path, straight or curved, at any moment in time all parts of the body move at the same linear velocity (speed and direction).
Ant keeps repeating that, not realizing that it is exactly what Moon is doing!
He’s so confused, he’s ended up a Non-Spinner!
Ant said “WITHOUT rotating … all parts of the body move at the same linear velocity”
Clint replied: “that it is exactly what Moon is doing!”
Clint, are you REALLY claiming that the near side of the moon and the far side of the moon are moving with the same velocity???
Exactly Folkerts. Both sides of Moon have the same instantaneous linear velocity as that velocity is instantaneously changed by gravity.
You’d have to know some physics to understand….
No way CLint,
The near side does not travel as far as the far side.
But take the same amount of time to make a revolution.
They are not moving at the same velocity.
Yes bob, that’s why Moon no longer exists. It tore itself apart.
It’s also why no race cars exist, or track runners. Orbiting is deadly….
(bob won’t get it, but that is an illustration of his ignorant attempts at science.)
Dear Clint,
The Moon didn’t tear itself apart because it is rotating on its internal axis.
You don’t understand.
Sucks to be you.
Sorry bob, but you’re still very confused. It’s due to your ignorance of the relevant physics.
You’re so confused you can’t even understand the simple ball-on-a-string, as I predicted.
Keep proving me right. I can take it….
Gordon, you JUST stated: “If all the particles in the rigid sphere have an angular velocity/momentum about an axis through the sphere, the sphere is rotating about that axis.”
ALL of the particles on the moon do that about the axis through the center of the sphere. All are moving in circles around that axis at a constant angular velocity of 360 degrees/27.3 days.
YOUR definition tells us the moon IS rotating about its axis!
Wrong again, Folkerts. You’re revealing your ignorance of physics, again.
Robertson wrote, for the umpteenth time on April 20, 2024 at 6:07 PM, the same nonsensical lie:
” Now Binny is ranting about spots on the Moon, not a word of proof that they are moving due to local rotation.
…
Binny doesn’t really understand Mayer who talked mainly about libration. ”
*
The word ‘libration’ occurs only once in Mayer’s treatise.
It makes no sense to discuss with people who ALWAYS restart lying despite having been corrected so often, the last time here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1662691
*
Robertson has no interest in understanding anything: his only interest is to endlessly repeat his egotistic blah blah, ad nauseam.
More Robertsonian nonsense
” Not one of your sources has proved that the Moon rotates on a local axis. In fact, it seems none of them were interested since most of the papers you posted were about libration, not rotation. ”
is of exactly the same vein.
No way to argue with all those lunar spin deniers reading the title of a treatise
” Theory of the libration of the Moon ”
and can’t even manage to read a few lines below that the content of the treatise discusses Moon’s spin as the main reason for the optical libration effects.
This is a clear hint on dishonesty, dementia or both.
Ein kleiner Vorgeschmack
Here are two first graphs comparing, for absolute temperatures as well as for the anomalies derived out of them, USHCN data to UAH’s LT data for CONUS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sY5GlJ9yaLzRWzWMt3FDda7KVoORHxRf/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ERhykPlDf6DyHFtJLhCT528V6sP54wjA/view
As we can see, not only US stations are ‘96% corrupted by artificial encroaches’; UAH’s LT data over CONUS apparently is as well :–)
*
The diagrams are extra C3RM variants to help Blindsley H00d avoid his constant, boring comments about wriggles, distortions and spikes.
Those using much more useful simple running means will be shown in Mr Spencer’s next global temp thread.
Bin-linear,
The average, and therefore the anomalies, will, for the most part, follow the general weather patterns. The extent to which they are corrupted or encroached matters little as a result. They correlate with time. That’s why your graphs are similar – both datasets calculate daily, monthly, and yearly averages. I made a clear case for all of that upthread, but you took away nothing, as expected.
What you’re doing is comparing apples with oranges: the surface is much more volatile, as evidenced by the higher and lower dips compared to the lower troposphere.
When you perform an uncertainty analysis on each data point, you can derive a wide range of trends, EVEN NEGATIVE ONES.
> The average, and therefore the anomalies
At some point Walter R. Hogle always ends up saying stuff.
The daily averages are averaged to a monthly average, which then becomes a deviation from the 30-year baseline.