Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2024 was +1.05 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up from the March, 2024 anomaly of +0.95 deg. C, and setting a new high monthly anomaly record for the 1979-2024 satellite period.
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).
It should be noted that the CDAS surface temperature anomaly has been falling in recent months (+0.71, +0.60, +0.53, +0.52 deg. C over the last four months), while the satellite deep-layer atmospheric temperature has been rising. This is usually an indication of extra heat being lost by the surface to the deep-troposphere through convection, and is what is expected due to the waning El Nino event. I suspect next month’s tropospheric temperature will fall as a result.
The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 16 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 |
| 2024 | Apr | +1.05 | +1.24 | +0.85 | +1.26 | +1.02 | +0.98 | +0.48 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for April, 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
Yet another notch upwards on the y-axis.
You and I were ridiculed over at WUWT for telling people not to eliminate the possibility that UAH could exceed +1.00 C during this ENSO cycle.
Yup, and true to form they haven’t reposted this update yet. Waiting for a low-traffic period and quickly posting other nonsense to bury it, if previous form is anything to go by.
Not so unexpected. It comes as the first repetition of a combined El Nino/Solar activity/Low stratospheric ozone/and alignment of at least 3 major planets since the 1998 spike; but this time we had all 4 major planets in alignment within an ENSO cycle. Last time 4 planets aligned was in the early 1940’s. You know the warming bump that climate models can’t even deal with. But that time it was a minor alignment with one planet 2 au further from earth.
TFN, yeah. Odd. It’s usually up the same day it is released or the next day at the latest. Surely it will get posted sometime today.
Planetary alignment …. HAHAHAHA … we have an astrologer on board!
Antonin Qwerty believes that planets are apparitions of sorcery and as such their gravity does not contribute to the net gravitational acceleration experienced by earth as it orbits.
Oh man that’s like being a ‘flat earther’.
Bill claims the recent WARM SPIKE was
“Not so unexpected. It comes as the first repetition of a combined El Nino/Solar activity/Low stratospheric ozone/and alignment of at least 3 major planets”
When called out on the Astrology component of his post, he moans that his critic:
“believes that planets are apparitions of sorcery and as such their gravity does not contribute to the net GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION”
I don’t what this dishonest tactic is called…seems to be a BAIT and SWITCH,
Whatever its called, Bill is a prolific practitioner.
Nate recognizes the fact he also called gravity pulling on earth at a different distance from the sun ‘astrology’.
Shows what he knows about this.
Bill still fails to recognize the fact that gravity of the planets pulling on earth aint Earth’s temperature!
Nope but the earth’s distance from the sun determines that among other things.
And there is no evidence offered that a single planetary alignment (whatever that means) does anything to Earth’s orbit of significance, unlike the Milankovitch cycles, which require many MANY planetary nudges over 10s of thousands of years.
Nate says:
”And there is no evidence offered that a single planetary alignment (whatever that means) does anything to Earths orbit of significance”
the flip side of which means there is no evidence that it is insignificant. A shocking discrepancy of governments spending trillions of dollars on this and they don’t even know what the causes are.
Total malfeasance and incompetence. Too many smart people for this to be happening. Its the result of out of control corruption.
And Nate, eccentricity variation is the first variable in Milankovitch theory so there is evidence. You have flipflopped from falsely claiming Milankovitch variability only occurs on a 100,000 year cycle to calling it astrology to claiming we don’t need to consider it because nobody has found it to be significant. . .yet science has embraced it as creating the ice ages. What is it with you guys?
“And Nate, eccentricity variation is the first variable in Milankovitch theory so there is evidence.”
Spouting sciency words lacking context or any calculation, are not evidence of anything, ever.
Science is quantitative. You offer nothing quantitative, no data, nor logic.
A phenomena is known to occur over a long LONG time period, so you why can’t it occur over a very SHORT period!
But offer nothing of substance to back up that thought bubble.
Continental Drift: It could happen in a year, sez genius Bill.
Winter can change to summer in 1 day, sez genius Bill.
Light sure can travel across our galaxy in a day, sez genius Bill.
“You have flipflopped from falsely claiming Milankovitch variability only occurs on a 100,000 year cycle to calling it astrology to claiming we dont need to consider it because nobody has found it to be significant.”
FALSE. No flip-flopping at all. See above.
And no, I never claimed anything about ‘only occurs on 100,000 year cycle’.
I have repeatedly said ’10’s of thousands of years’
Yet another shameless misrepresentation.
“the flip side of which means there is no evidence that it is insignificant. A shocking discrepancy of governments spending trillions of dollars on this and they dont even know what the causes are.”
Yeah, why dosnt the govt get right on that? Afterall it came from a noted expert.
Oh wait, nevermind, it was just some random crank on the internet…
Hunter guy might be interested that one of the first things done with the ice core was to apply Fourier analysis. I think the technique is called Power Spectral Density.
Have fun with your project.
Nate says:
May 6, 2024 at 6:47 AM
And Nate, eccentricity variation is the first variable in Milankovitch theory so there is evidence.
Spouting sciency words lacking context or any calculation, are not evidence of anything, ever.
Science is quantitative. You offer nothing quantitative, no data, nor logic.
A phenomena is known to occur over a long LONG time period, so you why cant it occur over a very SHORT period!
But offer nothing of substance to back up that thought bubble.
————————
sure there is evidence. we know from newton’s cannon that if the muzzle velocity is a bit more than necessary to achieve orbit the orbit will be elliptical but gravity will still keep it in orbit unless the velocity is above escape velocity. thus we know that variation of net gravitational pull will vary the orbits ellipticity. you claim its insignificant and have zero science to back that claim up. recognizing that i say we don’t know if its significant or insignificant and should put our knowledge to work and find out. it is a travesty that we haven’t done that and are growing a crop of ignoramouses that thinks its astrology.
nate says:
”I have repeatedly said 10s of thousands of years
Yet another shameless misrepresentation.”
what gravity alignment takes 10’s of thousands of years?
and how do you explain this lie?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1644065
“sure there is evidence. we know from newtons cannon that if the muzzle velocity is a bit more than necessary to achieve orbit the orbit will be elliptical but gravity will still keep it in orbit unless the velocity is above escape velocity. thus we know that variation of net gravitational pull will vary the orbits ellipticity. you claim its insignificant and have zero science to back that claim up”
Not a quantitative argument, Bill. Which is what is required to establish that your theory is plausible. Nor do you offer data. Or anything at all.
Gravity does stuff, but that doesnt mean it does anything significant to Earth’s orbit in a short time.
The only evidence we have is that these perturbations require many 10’s of thousands of years to produce an effect significant enough to alter Earth’s climate.
I understand that your goal is to irritate people, in this case by making them do work to DISPROVE your whimsical claims.
Not interested.
YOU made the implausible claim that such affects can occur over a year or two. YOU need to support it with evidence.
Put up or shut up.
Nate says:
”The only evidence we have is that these perturbations require many 10s of thousands of years to produce an effect significant enough to alter Earths climate.”
Oh you know that exists huh? Got a link to it?
Seem about time for Nate’s sock puppet to show up. Wait for it. . .
“Oh you know that exists huh? Got a link to it?”
Why are you now playing dum about the Milankovitch cycles that you constantly bring up?
YOU made the implausible claim that such affects can occur over a year or two. YOU need to support it with evidence.
Put up or shut up.
Nate,
OK, so if science is quantitative show how the Revelle Factor affects conservation of mass. I want to see the math. You can start with dL/dt= Inflow – Outflow.
its so obvious:
1. ipcc just ignores it
it does move the earth differentially than the sun.
and nobody has shown that movement to be insignificant. to many corrupt individuals feathering their own beds to the tune of trillions of dollars.
it demands attention. and i never said it can be done in a year or two. the industrial age is about as long as the orbit of neptune. and in that time the other planets will contribute on an irregular schedule. neptune can be near the neutrality line with or without other planets being there.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
“its so obvious:
1. ipcc just ignores it”
Sure, if mainstream science ignores it, then it MUST BE REAL, say Flat Earthers and Moon Landing deniers, pretty much constantly.
“it does move the earth differentially than the sun.”
Sure, and wind can bend tall buildings, so therefore the wind is what knocked down the Twin Towers!
You can’t calculate the size of this effect or show data to support that it will be significant.
You cant you even find a source that knows what they are talking about and agrees with you…
Just another crank theory with nothing to back it up!
Stephen,
“OK, so if science is quantitative show how the Revelle Factor affects conservation of mass. I want to see the math. You can start with dL/dt= Inflow Outflow.”
No you don’t.
You are another one who tries to get people to do work for you, which you then don’t understand, cannot rebut, and thus dismiss.
I’ve shown you this exact thing in the past, given you articles to read about it, and that was the result.
You have shown no ability or genuine interest in learning about it.
Here’s one paper.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1975.tb01671.x
The math you want is in equation 1, and the explanation of it is in the paragraphs that follow it.
Read it, understand it, then report back with your informed, intelligent questions.
I won’t hold my breath.
No, if you are going to invoke the Revelle Factor you need to be able to mathematically derive it from conservation of mass. That’s what Berry did. Berry used conservation of mass to verify the IPCC’s natural carbon cycle model and falsify their human carbon cycle model. Show him where he’s wrong. They claim a human carbon dioxide molecule and a natural carbon cycle molecule are treated differently by nature. The Equivalence Principle in science says this is patently false.
I showed Stephen the math he wants, again he rejects it without reading it!
“if you are going to invoke the Revelle Factor you need to be able to mathematically derive it from conservation of mass.”
The Revelle factor comes from chemistry, Stephen.
You cannot derive chemistry from conservation of mass!
Both need to be incorporated. See eqn 1.
Come back when informed and have an intelligent comment or question.
Nate,
You are the one who said Berry’s math is wrong because of the Revelle Factor. So you need to show mathematically how the Revelle Factor causes nature to affect the outflow of human and natural CO2 differently. Berry’s hypothesis is outflow is equal to Level/eTime. So, it is your contention that the eTime of human and natural CO2 are different because of the Revelle Factor. Show mathematically how.
Nate says:
May 8, 2024 at 3:39 PM
”I showed Stephen the math he wants, again he rejects it without reading it!”
Nate lies all the time about what he has shown. never believe him unless he provides a link proving it he he makes any such claim.
SPA is right here. Revelle’s theory is correct chemically but not correct physically in nature. Of course Revelle knew that and wasn’t alarmed by AGW. Its just that with nature you have to measure the response of nature and not guesstimate it.
Now it is known that the release of carbon into the atmosphere has dramatically increased the ”fast carbon cycle” where carbon is sequestered in the growth of biological life forms, greening the planet dramatically, improving the human condition, moderating weather, and saving lives.
Factor that in and you have conserved mass.
Stephen,
So when I again showed you you math and a paper, that explain the Revelle factor, and how it reduces the carbon uptake of the ocean, you of course do not read it or understand, and thus reject it.
You confirmed my prediction.
What’s the point of asking questions when you have zero interest in the answer?
“Berrys hypothesis is outflow is equal to Level/eTime. ”
Yes, see eq. 1 in the paper. That is the third term on the right.
But the other terms also matter. And he doesnt include them correctly.
That is why he utterly failed to predict the observed annual growth in atmospheric cO2, that has been consistently around 45% of annual anthro emissions for ~ 60 years.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/essd-15-5301-2023-f09-thumb.png
Then we have Bill predictably man-splaining all about a topic he obviously knows little about.
Is Nate actually now denying that the fast carbon cycle sequestration of carbon has not increased? Stay tuned for his answer.
Bill, the master-baiter, says come with me down my rabbit-hole of total confusion.
No thanks.
Wow Nate just admitted that the fast carbon cycle explaining the conservation of mass issue has dire implications for his theory, by calling it something he doesn’t want to discuss.
Any discussion with Bill leads to “dire implications”
And for those curious about what the anomaly is on the old 1981-2010 baseline it is +1.17 C.
OK, so what? Warm is nice. Much better than cold. We can feed everyone during warm.
Not so nice for these people.
https://www.ifrc.org/nota-prensa/deadly-heatwave-sahel-and-west-africa-would-have-been-impossible-without-human-caused
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/04/inside-an-oven-how-life-in-south-east-asia-is-a-struggle-amid-sweltering-heat
But that’s ok, those people don’t matter, right Stephen?
It’s interesting to look at different perspectives and what is and (more importantly) isn’t said.
The month is the highest ever recorded anomaly in the UAH record, the graph Y scale had to be extended (yet again) to accommodate the data, and the analysis of the second paragraph is about why the anomaly will probably be lower next week. It (probably) isn’t technically wrong, but it gives the distinct appearance of burying the lede.
I’m prepared to be wrong, but I do think 1.05 C will be the peak of this ENSO cycle.
Even if the May anomaly is cooler than April, it would need to fall by a big margin way not to beat the previous record high May, +0.52C back in 1998.
Highest Arctic sea ice extent yesterday on May 1 in ten years.
Funny:
https://tinyurl.com/arctic-sea-ice-graph
The blue line isn’t on top.
In fact it’s even lower than the red one, the record minimum.
The record summer low was in 2012, which had high ice in the spring and at winter maximum. A late summer cyclone caused the low.
Arctic sea ice minimum has trended up since 2012. So far the average for this decade has been higher than for 2011-20. Current ice extent is not only above last decades average but close to 2001-10.
John,
If you pick the lowest optimum of any data set, there will be a higher trend somewhere around that point.
If you take a look at the chart and click on the various items in the right margin, you can compare the 2001-2010 average to the 2011-2020 average. There are also the 1991-2000 and the 1979-1990 averages.
Please report.
Yes, it does annihilate the nonsense claims of the McPhersonist cult who claim we will have our first ice-free Arctic in the next three years, and then promptly go extinct.
Both extremes of the climate spectrum believe that what is happening right now is climate provided it agrees with their belief, but is not climate if it does not. That applies also to the effects of climate change, such as ice melt. The Mcphersonists represent the state of the climate relative to 1750 by the warmest month in the last few years, while deniers choose the coldest month in the last few years to represent their claim.
Only those of us in the middle who follow the real science of the IPCC understand that short term variation is not climate, whichever way it heads, and that only the centre of the distribution represents climate (applicable also to its effects).
That Arctic sea ice has not made a new low since 2012 shows that those who pointed out its cyclic were right. During its cyclic decline from near its century high in 1979, extent made new lows every five years. IPCC did not predict a 12 year uptrend since the record low in 2012.
I have looked at decadal averages. As youd expect, the trend was down for 1981-2020, but for the current decade presently appears up, as climatologists have predicted based on prior centuries in the Holocene.
When and if Arctic sea ice declines for 2021-30 under still rising CO2, the hypothesis that man-made global warming shrinks its extent will have been shown false and cyclicality confirmed.
The fact that the 2011-2020 average reaches lower lows than previous decade averages shows that cycle nuts still have a long way to go.
Nothing nutty about cycles. Whats crazy is to imagine Arctic sea ice was always higher before CO2 started increasing after AD 1850.
The multi decadal cycle is 30 to 40 years. It was low during the 1920s to 40s, such that the Northern Sea Route along Siberia was open during WWII. Sea ice grew from the late 40s until the PDO flip of 1977. Then it fell again until 2007, when a new low record was set in the dedicated satellite record since 1979. Since then, the trend has been sideways, and up since 2012, after which no new low records have been set.
The reality of cycles has already been confirmed. A calendar decade higher than the prior one would not only reconfirm that fact but show the CO2 hypothesis false.
Arctic ice in this century is higher than in most of the Holocene.
As you pointed out, in 2012, “A late summer cyclone caused the low” while the rest of the year was more ordinary.
So that sounds like the vagaries of weather that season of that year. Probably better to look at all year, and average over several years.
We are also seeing Antarctica reach new lows for last few seasons.
> Nothing nutty about cycles.
“Cycle nuts” designate contrarians who cling to cycles even when being shown a clear trend from 1979 to now.
The Arctic sea ice downtrend from 1977 reversed in 2012. There has not been a new low despite two Arctic cyclones in 2016 and one in 2020, as also in 2007. That Arctic ice is growing in general explains why 2016 was higher than 2012.
Antarctic sea ice shows the CO2-sea ice hypothesis false. Antarctic sea extent ballooned dramatically in the dedicated satellite record from 1979 to 2014, while Arctic extent fell. No correlation with rising CO2 means no causation.
Super El Nio 2016 and two weather events in Antarctica then caused sea ice there to decline. It started recovering, then was hammered by the Tongan eruption.
Pointing out that Arctic sea ice is “highest” in ten years is an attempt to spread fake news.
Climate trends are based on 30 year averages. A ten year event is natural variation and would have occurred even if humans never spread across the globe.
JT
Arctic extent has indeed been up so far this decade. But if you believe you can determine a “cycle” after just 4 years then you are deluding yourself … that is just wishful thinking.
AQ:
Please read what I actually wrote. The last lower Arctic sea ice cycle was from 1977 to 2007 or 2012. It’s not based upon three years in this decade. However, if the whole decade 2021-30 proves higher than the average for 2011-20, as is possible, if not indeed probable, then the CO2 hypothesis will have been falsified.
The previous low ice cycle, as noted was from around WWI to WWII, followed by the high Arctic ice cycle, c. 1945-77, despite growing CO2 that whole time. While the Northern Sea Route was naturally open during WWII, the USSR built nuclear ice breakers to keep it open during summer in the 1950s, et seq.
You may have read the famous 1922 news article on disappearing Arctic sea ice. For more than a century, climatologists, biologists, oceanographers and historians have known Arctic sea ice extent to be cyclic. Only “climate scientists”, ie computer gamers who believe natural trends can be extrapolated indefinitely, fell for the scam, or claimed they bought into it.
You certainly use artistic licence when reporting on your “science”.
Kohn,
“The Arctic sea ice downtrend from 1977 reversed in 2012.”
In the peak arctic sea ice period, March, there was no minimum in 2012, and no trend reversal.
https://tinyurl.com/5484ekaw
So that suggests that September 2012 was a singular weather event, rather than an indicator of a trend reversal.
More important than sea ice, the land ice sheets on Greenland and W. Antarctica have continued to decline in mass.
https://tinyurl.com/cn7mvke5
Greenland ice mass measured by satellite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMnFbIDIEGs
‘Kohn’ Typo, should be John
> The Arctic sea ice downtrend from 1977 reversed in 2012.
You might as well argue that the current SPY reversed the trend since 1977, John. Anywho, a point is not a trend, and the 2011-2020 is lower than the previous trends. Cycle nuts ought to know that cycles imply a reversion to the mean.
Suppose Arctic sea ice was an ETF. Would you buy and hold it for enough years to leave It to your grand children?
Arctic sea ice extent since 1840. The decline tracks well with the increase in CO2.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/4/full-JCLI-D-21-0099.1-f3.jpg
Source https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0099.1
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner returns to his old ways.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
To what do you attribute the increase, or is it a combination of factors? Is it cyclic? Should we expect it to retreat in the not too distant future?
Ye Gods!
Beats the previous record for April set in 1998, by 0.43C.
Warmest Aprils:
1 2024 1.05
2 1998 0.62
3 2016 0.61
4 2019 0.33
5 2020 0.27
6 2022 0.27
7 2005 0.20
8 2010 0.20
9 2017 0.19
10 2023 0.18
The next couple of months will be interesting for records. May and June’s records were both set in 1998 – 0.52C and 0.44C. For those records not to be beaten will require a record breaking drop in anomalies over the next two months.
It’s also the warmest anomaly so far for any month. Of the 12 highest anomalies, 10 have been in the last year.
Year Month Anomaly
1 2024 4 1.05
2 2024 3 0.95
3 2023 10 0.93
4 2024 2 0.93
5 2023 11 0.91
6 2023 9 0.90
7 2024 1 0.86
8 2023 12 0.83
9 2016 2 0.71
10 2023 8 0.70
11 2016 3 0.65
12 2023 7 0.64
Fans of cherry-picking short term trends, should note that if you start the trend at just about any point after 1979 will now give you a faster rate of warming than looking at the entire data set. Even the trend starting just before the 1998 El Nino spike – i.e. the original pause, now shows a warming rate of 0.16C / decade.
The trend since the start of the New Pause, August 2014, is now 0.32C / decade. And the trend over last 6 years is 0.74C / decade.
All this really shows is that the shorter the period for more it will be influenced by short term fluctuations.
Here’s a side by side comparison of the three main El Nino events.
https://i.imgur.com/ohv7np3.png
It is interesting how much temperatures have increased since the start of the year, when it looked as if the peak had already been reached last October.
Makes it clear how much earlier was the rise in this cycle.
Makes it very difficult to implicate that warming to just El-Nino, HT water vapor is likely to be the early forcing.
ERA5 shows April as a new record for the month, but by a smaller amount than in recent months.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/warmest-april-on-record-but-a-possible
Meanwhile UAH and RSS show ever higher anomalies.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/pages/latest/T/mth1.png
Why the divergence?
“Why the divergence?”
It seems that the lower troposphere reacts more strongly and in a less direct manner to ENSO variations than does the surface.
It’s a consistent pattern; there’s a 3-4 month delay in the on-set and dissipation of ENSO variations in TLT data compared to surface.
Dr Spencer suggests above that this is because excess heat from the warming phase of ENSO is lost from the surface to the troposphere before it dissipates.
“What isn’t being discussed (as far as I can tell) is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels (which we will assume for the sake of discussion causes global warming)“… is doing this: https://ibb.co/St9nWgp
CO2 levels are completely stable over the last 7 months.
“ completely stable” ?
https://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/co2_400/mlo_six_months.pdf
Pretty sure there is not a month that goes by where the discussion here doesn’t address the rapid rise in CO2 and its effects.
And you KNOW that second graph is misleading. It is picking up ONLY the seasonal increase in CO2 that we get at this time of the year. There is NO indication of “instability”. Not that the other guy has any business implying that there SHOULD be short term instability.
“And you KNOW that second graph is misleading.”
I posted that graph in response to Charles Best’s query: ‘CO2 levels are completely stable over the last 7 months.’
Pro-tip: always answer the question asked!
Thank you for your contribution.
You QUESTIONED his claim of stability (the question mark), so your ensuing graph MUST have been an attempt to prove instability.
Pro Tips
(1) don’t try to feign a different motivation after the event
(2) if you want your motivation to be understood, try including some WORDS with you comment which explain it
Thanks for your contribution.
Got it. Thanks
AI, CO2 follows temperature. Always has as the evidence shows.
We were just talking about members of the Right who attack Jews, and who should show up on cue!
“CO2 follows temperature. Always has as the evidence shows.”
What evidence is that?
In God we trust. All others must bring data.
Arkady, you asked for data.
CO2 following temperature was extensively discussed here:https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/26/causality-and-climate/
In the thread you’ll find links to published papers.
For several reasons I wasn’t entirely comfortable with the time-domain approach used in the article, so I used a frequency-domain methodology to measure the delay between CO2 and temperatures as a function period. This allows the separation of different processes. In short, for periods from 2-10 years, and likely longer, CO2 lags temperature by six months. For the annual process, the delay is much shorter, but causality is in the same direction, as would be expected given the relationship between vegetation and seasonal temperature variations.
In the following plots, delay is observed as the slope on the phase response (blue traces)
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend.png
Having spent quite a bit of time on this, I’m convinced that changes in temperature over the last fifty years cannot be attributed to CO2, unless it can be shown that time runs backwards.
CO2 did not follow temperature during the PETM nor is it following temperature today. Instead it got released independently via volcanic activity and human activity respectively.
Perhaps, but pirates obviously cause global cooling.
Arrr!
BGDWX,
We know temperature doesn’t and never has followed CO2 because we’re still here.
SPA, let me make sure I’m understanding your point. Are you saying that humans could not have released CO2 into the atmosphere independent of temperature because if we did then we wouldn’t exist? Yes/No?
Robert Cutler
I can appreciate the effort you’ve put into this work, and I congratulate you on it, but for me statistics cannot answer the question, what happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? You need a mechanistic model.
“In short, for periods from 2-10 years, and likely longer, CO2 lags temperature by six months”
Robert, makes sense, because those are the time scales of ENSO or the seasons, and we know that CO2 responds to those T changes.
But for the decadal and longer growth of CO2, there is no evidence T caused the unprecedented CO2 growth this last century.
BDGWX,
Why haven’t high excursion in CO2 in the past caused higher temperatures that caused even higher CO2 and so on? We wouldn’t be here.
Step 1 and Step 2 – Sammich Request presupposing Pure Denial
SPA: Why havent high excursion in CO2 in the past caused higher temperatures that caused even higher CO2 and so on? We wouldnt be here.
First…it has occurred. The PETM.
Second…feedbacks only runaway when the 1) the feedback factor is greater than 1 and 2) when the feedback has no limiting factors. CO2’s feedback factor is probably less than 1 for most scenarios (reasons). But even if it isn’t it has two limiting factors. The first is the speed at which the physical processes release carbon into the atmosphere. The second is the finite mass in the various carbon reservoirs which clamps the feedback once the stock is exhausted.
We’re all surprised by this result, but we know it’s not caused by CO2. CO2 can not raise temperatures. Dr. Spencer mentioned a likely cause: This is usually an indication of extra heat being lost by the surface to the deep-troposphere through convection, and is what is expected due to the waning El Nino event.
Also likely is the remaining thermal energy from the HTE.
Clint R
Are you claiming insulation will not raise the temperature of a heated house in the winter? Will insulation manufacturers go broke once people start believing your unscientific opinions? Why spend money insulating your home when it does nothing.
CO2 acts as a radiant barrier between the surface and space. Most know this, a few crackpots like you, Swenson, and Gordon Robertson are not able to accept evidence that shows this to be the case. Primarily satellite values of measured IR values reaching them. The IR reaching the satellite is much less than the surface is emitting. The radiant barrier acts as a radiant insulator for the surface. Reducing the surface heat loss as it is heated by solar influx.
You do not seem able to comprehend this and so continue to show your complete lack of any science background whatsoever.
Norman, you’re just another child of the cult. If you want to learn some science, grow up. Stop with the cult tactics.
Norman,
You wrote –
“CO2 acts as a radiant barrier between the surface and space”
Absolutely correct. The atmosphere acts as an insulator, and prevents about 30% of the Sun’s energy at the “top of the atmosphere” from even reaching the surface. This enables life as we know it on Earth. Otherwise, maximum temperatures would reach those recorded on the Moon – in excess of 120 C, well above boiling point.
Are you denying this simple fact, and the science behind it?
You might as well respond now, because I intend to repeat throwing your statement back in you teeth until you are forced to face reality.
And for everyone that thinks CO2 heats the planet – please explain why water vapour doesn’t do it more effectively?
Any one versed in the science knows this spike is a major problem for conventional views of a greenhouse effect and global warming. There is no plausible mechanism I’ve heard of to produce a spike in stratospheric temperatures this big, and over this short a time period.
Whatever it is completely overwhelms natural variability so it’s definitely something significant and not properly characterised, and we don’t know if its something baked in from some time ago, or caused by a more current process.
My money would be on high altitude aerosol chemistry we have ignored, triggered by HTE. The one thing I would need extraordinary evidence for to accept, is that it’s from anthropogenic CO2.
Methane from melting tundra is a candidate I guess, but if that were the case, I’m sure the people whose jobs depend on climate science being a thing would be trumpeting ‘we told you so’ from their ivory towers.
Summarising cLInt’s response:
Satellites do not measure surface temperatures.
“And for everyone that thinks CO2 heats the planet – please explain why water vapour doesn’t do it more effectively?”
Yes, water vapor is the most important radiative and dynamic component of Earth’s atmosphere. However, its concentration varies significantly with time and geographical location in accordance with the hydrological cycle of evaporation, condensation, and precipitation, and large scale circulation processes. CO2 on the other hand, is a nearly permanent component up to about 80 km altitude.
The relationship between atmospheric CO2 and water vapor can be understood through the Clausius-Clapeyron equation which describes the equilibrium vapor pressure of a liquid in terms of temperature. As the CO2 forcing raises Earth’s temperature, the water vapor content of the atmosphere increases in response.
In summary, water vapor is a hefty passenger, but CO2 is the driver.
“Stop with the cult tactics.”
Yeah Norman, quit presenting facts, logic, and explanations. And quit showing your sources.
Ya know, just stop all those ‘cult’ tactics.
Instead, just be more like Clint:
Make it all up, never offer sound logic, and definitely no sources to back it up. Then top-it-off by insulting your opponents!
” The atmosphere acts as an insulator, and prevents about 30% of the Suns energy at the top of the atmosphere from even reaching the surface. ”
Sorry that is called reflection, not insulation. And some of it makes it to the surface before being reflected off snow and ice.
As usual, Swenson plays exceedingly dum about the abs.orbance of IR emitted from the Earth to space, which acts to insulate the Earths surface from the extreme cold of space.
Dixon,
Yes, another step change, like the several before implies non- systematic cause.
According to troglodytes, shrooms have an effect all the way down or they do not cause anything.
Dixon: And for everyone that thinks CO2 heats the planet please explain why water vapour doesnt do it more effectively?
Water vapor does heat the planet. However, the big difference is that water vapor is a condensing gas whereas CO2 is noncondensing. Because H2O is a condensing gas it is in a stable equilibrium with the temperature in accordance with the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship.
Physicists like to use a marble in a bowl to illustrate how stable equilibriums work. When the bowl is jostled around the marble moves in chaotic directions along the walls, but it will always tend to settle towards its stable equilibrium at the bottom. Like the marble in a bowl water vapor gets jostled above and below its equilibrium level in a chaotic manner too. Perturbations above this level result in more condensation. Perturbations below this level result in more evaporation. In this manner water vapor tends to settled towards its equilibrium level like the marble.
CO2 does not have a stable equilibrium with the temperature like H2O does. This is why CO2 can force a temperature change on its own and why H2O can only amplify a change catalyzed by something else as part of a feedback.
SPA: Yes, another step change, like the several before implies non- systematic cause.
As I’ve told you before step changes do not eliminate systematic contributions. Let me explain it conceptually with math. Let f(t) = t + sin(t) be a function of a important variable within a system wrt to time t. The t term on the rhs represents a linear systematic contribution and sin(t) represents a cyclic non-systematic contribution. When you plot this (desmos works well) you’ll a pause-up-pause-up pattern with step changes yet variable is clearly being influenced by a systematic contribution that causes it to tend upwards despite the non-systematic contribution. It is what happens when you superimpose a non-systematic component (like sin(t) in f(t) or ENSO in the real world) onto a systematic component (like t in f(t) or GHG forcing in the real world).
Ark and bdgwx ramble eloquently about their belief that CO2 can warm the planet.
But, they don’t seem to realize that beliefs ain’t science.
They would have to show how CO2 does warm the planet. What is the exact mechanism? How can a 15μ photon raise the temperature of a 288K surface? They can’t do that because it doesn’t happen.
bdgwx says:
”As Ive told you before step changes do not eliminate systematic contributions.”
I agree with bdgwx here. But the real question is whether the non-systematic pattern has a consistent influence. We agree with the need for a non-systematic influence but we cannot eliminate that influence from having its own patterns of increasing effects such as planets aligning in batches and then due to smaller differences in timing become non-aligned creating much longer termed cycles. . .such as with the movement of multiple planets.
The fact is we cannot just handwave away effects that are variable AND have evidence of occurring within the record of interest that cannot be explained. That only occurs when corruption is rampant. We are a much smarter specie than that.
Bill,
Murray Salby (may he RIP) disagrees. The equation that BGDWX offers above does not describe what we are seeing.
Clearly there is a non-systematic influence. (I am taking non-systematic to mean from outside the earth system).
The peak temperature in the 1940’s is an example of a particularly large event that CO2 models cannot begin to explain.
But as indicated by Syun Akasofu there are layers to this. CO2 when warmer than the coldest days in the highest latitudes is going to help warm those temperature up. The dark winter in the arctic you see a lot of variability in mean temperatures. Obviously if the atmospheric co2 is warmer than the surface its going to cause the surface to be warmer. thus I ascribe to the amount of warming from CO2 being somewhere between .25C and 1.0C per doubling.
But also I ascribe to Dr Akasofu’s statement that to understand anthropogenic warming you have to understand natural warming. And understanding natural warming isn’t on the table due to the political corruption that runs rampant through our universities.
> But the real question is
Our Inspecteur Clouseau always haz ze question.
Yeah, 99 percent of the funding goes to try to prove an insane theory that has already been falsified. It is the same with macroevolution. It has already been falsified. Their argument is you have to come up with a better theory. That’s not how science works.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
“They would have to show how CO2 does warm the planet. What is the exact mechanism? How can a 15μ photon raise the temperature of a 288K surface?”
Since I can put a 288K sandwich into a microwave and warm it with photons carrying 10^-5 eV each, I don’t see warming a 288K surface with photons carrying 0.08eV an impossibility.
But the mechanism is CO2 absorbing those 15μ photons then bumping into other air molecules. When that happens the energy becomes kinetic and warms the air above that 288K surface.
“It is the same with macroevolution. It has already been falsified.”
Why an I not surprised that people rejecting global warming also reject macroevolution and the idea that the Moon rotates every 28 days on an axis 7 degrees off perpendicular to its orbital plane?
SPA: The equation that BGDWX offers above does not describe what we are seeing.
It’s not meant to describe reality. It’s meant only as a simple example to demonstrate a fundamental truth. The fundamental truth…systematic and non-systematic can occur simultaneously and when they do it is possible for them to combine in manner that yields a pause-up-pause-up pattern. It’s important to understand this fundamental truth using a simple example before trying to apply it to the vastly more complicated real world. So I’ll ask you…do you understand how the equation f(t) = t + sin(t) behaves at a fundamental level?
Its really not a matter of systemic vs non-systemic. Climate change is obviously wrought by a multitude of causes. Its just that mankind hasn’t been able to create any sudden massive change thus all such changes such as the recent warming event of ENSO on top of solar max, on top of ozone depletion, on top of planetary alignment has all come together at the same time. Does that sit on top of a gradual warming from CO2 or is this just a culmination of events several years, decades, or centuries in the making? It can all be non-systematic or it may be part systematic. I would agree with SPA if CO2 could only warm the surface if the CO2 is colder as in the mainstream theory. But believe its just the opposite of that which means it plays a much more minor role but not zero role.
BGDWX,
Of course I understand it, do you? The F(t)= t is a straight line with some positive slope and the F(t)= sint is a sine wave oscillating around t. But that’s not what we’re seeing. The step-change is non-systematic so it steps up caused by something outside the system and then the sine wave oscillates around 1,2,3 etc. but a non-systematic cause.
In other words, the sine wave is systematic but the step-change isn’t.
> mankind hasnt been able to create any sudden massive change
Step 1 – Pure Denial
LMAO! Willard is so deep in the tank he can’t see any light.
Stephen P. Anderson says:
”In other words, the sine wave is systematic but the step-change isnt.”
The big problem with CO2 being a large contributor is that the sine wave of warming when looked at as a pattern in changes to warming rates leaves a pattern of underlying warming as a straight line.
But CO2 emissions did not follow a straight line increase. The underlying rate of warming that isn’t explainable didn’t increase with a straight line increase in emissions. Thus at a minimum the underlying warming below the step changes is also a combination of waning natural warming and CO2 warming. So Akasofu is almost certainly right in his graph and when that graph is actually studied by our researchers and attributed out of that will emerge the effect that CO2 has. My initial reasonableness tests I did roughly 16 years ago estimated that CO2 contributed less than .5C per doubling.
Dr. Easterbrook’s work, verified by other works strongly suggests that there is a natural pattern that is somewhat irregular that can create more than 3C warming in 200-300 years. And our current warming is perfectly consistent with that. Folks try to handwave away the facts while refusing to recognize it waving it off as ”noise”. When temperature amplification on the Greenland plateau flatlined in first decade of the 21st century what did our science funders do? They decommissioned the stations. Thats our biggest climate issue. . .corruption and a complete lack of desire to provide any data that runs contrary to the official narrative. Not that that runs contrary to any of our more basic instincts.
Gill returns to
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROFL
SPA: Of course I understand it
Great. Then we have established that it is possible for a systematic component to get superimposed onto a non-systematic component such that a pause-up-pause-up or step change pattern is produced.
Now consider the more realistic equation U(t) = C(t) + E(t) + V(t) + A(t) + S(t) where t is time, U is the UAH temperature anomaly, C is the CO2 concentration, E is the ENSO state, V is volcanic aerosols, A is anthropogenic aerosols, and S is solar zenith flux. We now reproduce U given only C, E, V, A, and S with reasonable skill including the pauses, increases, declines, and step changes. In this model C behaves as a linear component while E, V, A, and S behave as cyclic or oscillatory components.
The following graph should help you visualize the result.
https://i.imgur.com/nZzSVG0.png
BH: Dr. Easterbrooks work, verified by other works strongly suggests that there is a natural pattern that is somewhat irregular that can create more than 3C warming in 200-300 years.
I mean…Easterbrook’s predictions are some of the worst out there so I’m having difficulty understanding what you could possibly mean by “verified”.
bdgwx there isn’t anybody who doesn’t suck at making climate predictions. The mainstream tendency of say investors is ride a trend until it crashes. As a consultant the advice is hedge your bets so you don’t go down in flames. . .which always happens if you don’t.
That is essentially the only thinking that has gone into climate alarmism. They resurrected a theory that had been all but dead for 3/4’s of a century because of a relentless trend. Two major natural phenomena can easily explain that trend without any recognizable source because of being entirely a momentum triggered by some unmeasured or poorly measured natural climate change factor. 1) gradual increase in ocean heat content, and 2) a gradual retreat of glaciation. We don’t know at what point in the next 1000 years or more that might find a current equilibrium.
So we have those trend riders riding their predictions like Slim Pickens as Major T. J. “King” Kong in Dr. Strangelove and we have folks looking for patterns in the decadal data where we actually have a ‘short’ climate record betting on ocean oscillations and stuff.
The real truth is lauded ‘experts’ are expect to have answers and to not give one no matter how much or how little is too bruising. The ignorant do it because they don’t know better. Those expected to know better do it because if they don’t they might not be viewed as an expert.
What I am talking about above we know it can take more than 400,000 years to melt an ice sheet because science has told us so. We know some waters in the ocean have seen the surface in many centuries or more.
We know that gravity from planetary alignments have patterns that take many thousands of years. Its a relatively easy math problem to look at just the rate of the gas giants and see a complex pattern their due to orbit periods not being primary number divisible. We haven’t had more than one solar cycle in a row predicted by the same formula. . .though they may be getting closer. . .until of course at which time the trend suddenly changes.
I don’t know what you’re looking at Bill because that’s precisely what we’re not seeing. We’re seeing a step-change, then a sinusoid around t=1,2,3,etc., then a step-change and another sinusoid, etc. etc.
The only thing we’re seeing advance linearly is CO2 as an integral of temperature.
Stephen P. Anderson says:
”I dont know what youre looking at Bill because thats precisely what were not seeing.”
I am just talking about single causes of forcing. Multiple causes create all sorts of variations.
Real data from a century ago.
Then with an added linear trend demonstrates the escalator effect.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665440
BH: bdgwx there isnt anybody who doesnt suck at making climate predictions.
It depends on what you mean by “suck”. If you mean that there is always some error no matter how small then sure. But if you mean that they couldn’t even get the direction of the temperature change correct then no; it’s only been contrarian predictions from Easterbrook, Archibald, etc. who think the Sun and only the Sun influences the temperature. Their predictions suck no matter how you define the term.
SPA: Were seeing a step-change, then a sinusoid around t=1,2,3,etc., then a step-change and another sinusoid, etc. etc.
It’s actually more complicated than that even. If you look at the UAH values there is a lot of seemingly chaotic ups, downs, pauses, spikes, etc in there. Yet if you combine only the 5 factors I mentioned above it explains most of those ups, downs, pauses, spikes, etc. I’ll see it again…this is what happens when you superimpose a systematic component on top of non-systematic components.
riding a trend is what the non-scientific prognosticator does routinely unless you are a contrarian, then you always predict a change.
to claim any skill at riding a trend the trend must show the variability of the perturbance. as i said when you are profiting from the trend the main tendency is to predict its continuance.
“riding a trend is what the non-scientific prognosticator”
Riiight, there has been no science to explain the trend, discussed here at this blog!
Well you do have a theory that cold stuff can warm warmer stuff you have been selling around here in the name of the 3rd grader radiation model that is known not to work. Beyond that you haven’t described any other theory.
More and more Bill says stuff… that has no connection to reality.
He weirdly thinks the differential equations in Manabe and Wetherald, 1967, that were evidently well beyond his ability to grasp, are taught in third grade.
And as usual, plays dum about the convection included in it, and similar models.
Then he forgets that he sometimes agrees that there is a GHE!
Oh well.
you need a warming variable for those differential equations. What is it and what was it derived from? I have been asking for this forever. Is it that you don’t know like you don’t know if major warming cycles occur at 10’s of thousands of years, or 100 thousand year, or 400 thousand years and you just spout out random numbers in order to refute what somebody has posted?
BH, cold things make warm things warmer all of the time. An easy an intuitive example is the door on your kitchen oven. Close the cooler door and the warmer inside will warm further. The theory…the 1LOT. And this doesn’t violate the 2LOT since heat is not moving from the cooler door to the warmer inside. Heat is still moving from the hot burner to the warmer inside to the cooler door to the cold outside. It’s just that the cooler door reduces the amount by which that flow happens. As a result the inside is forced to warm consistent with both the 1LOT and 2LOT.
“you need a warming variable for those differential equations. What is it and what was it derived from?”
So you admit that the paper has been discussed here and has differential equations in it.
Thanks.
Then you admit that this
“the 3rd grader radiation model that is known not to work. Beyond that you havent described any other theory.”
is FALSE.
Now, go back and read the paper, try to understand it and then ask intelligent informed questions.
sb equations has an object in a radiation field warming to equilibrium and the near surface temperature where co2 has been completely blocked and is considered the same as surface temperature can’t warm more even if its a solid door and its not. so far no evidence has been produced that the door is getting more solid than it is. thats the only way you could prove that.
this experiment and others show you are wrong, differential equations or not. https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
do you have an experiment that shows different? you don’t.
been ther done that nate: https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
Gill confuses the absence of evidence in one study for an evidence of absence.
LMAO
After Bill is shown evidence that his claim that he has never been shown real GHE theory here, is total BS, he tries to change the subject to something else, bad experiments!
Not buying it.
His claim was falsified, but he won’t acknowledge it, and he’ll keep repeating it anyway.
Thats what he does.
Bill, try to say focused on one thing: go back and read MW 1967, try to understand it and then ask intelligent informed questions.
m&W is mathematics for the purpose of applying an unestablished theory of backradiation in the 3rd grader radiation model for the purpose of producing a climate model that has co2 changing the dry lapse rate. oddly though meteorologists don’t recognize that change for a new atmospheric profile model. thats because m&w has been considered adequate for anything but climate models that overestimate warming.
Connecting the above post by me to the discussion of predicting trends and riding trends above. . .it should be noted that the icecore data submitted by Zeke Hausfather supports natural warming trends of up to 4C over at least 250 years.
Thus seeing as how the warming we are currently experiencing resides well within the parameters of natural warming one cannot conclude the current warming is predominately unnatural. That would put the unnatural warming at around .7C per doubling as a maximum supported by current scientific information.
“m&W is mathematics for the purpose of applying an unestablished theory of backradiation in the 3rd grader radiation model”
Nah, just Bill the auditor dismissing highly influential physics that led to the development of global circulation models, because he just doesn’t understand it!
Science will file that rant where it belongs.
Nate says:
”Nah, just Bill the auditor dismissing highly influential physics that led to the development of global circulation models, because he just doesnt understand it!
Science will file that rant where it belongs.”
Yes it led to the development of global circulation models that greatly over estimate warming and that have no clue if some of the warming that they got right is from CO2 or natural causes as there is no valid differential equation that can distinguish between the two.
Nate says:
”Then he forgets that he sometimes agrees that there is a GHE!
Oh well.”
of course i agree. water we know does alter the lapse rate in accordance with m&w.
and co2 may contribute a small amount where atmospheric inversions are common without additionally changing the lapse rate.
and of course that means only at most a half degree solar, ozone, ocean momentum, or ice otherwise needs to be established to account for the LIA recovery or items such uhi, deforestation, agriculture, and other purturbances for the entire industrial age warming.
Nate wrote: “But for the decadal and longer growth of CO2, there is no evidence T caused the unprecedented CO2 growth this last century.”
I never said that it did. Here’s another way of looking at the data that is less rigorous and more subjective but doesn’t require a background in signal analysis.
https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_SH.png
In short, the CO2 concentration and southern-hemisphere temperature data are separately de-trended using second-order polynomials and filtered using a one-year moving average to eliminate seasonal variations. The de-trended data is plotted in the upper, right graph. Focusing on the long-term trends, not the short-term fluctuations, what do you see? This is not meant to be a Rorschach test, but I suspect it will be.
Without any evidence of fluctuations in [CO2] driving temperature, it’s difficult to make an argument that the 2nd-order trend in [CO2] over almost 70 years is responsible for the linear trend in temperature. Also, with a multi-decadal sensitivity of only 6ppm/degC, it doesn’t seem likely that the linear rise in temperature accounts for all of the change in [CO2], or if temperature is the cause, it’s through a VERY slow set of processes.
BTW, the sensitivity is visible in the frequency domain analysis, top left graph, numbers in parenthesis. For example, seasonal sensitivity is 61ppm/degC, sensitivity for 10-year periods is 5ppm/degC. The 6ppm/degC scaling used above was manually selected for best visual match.
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend.png
Here’s another example, this time [CO2] was de-trended using a natural log function, and global temperature was de-trended using a first-order polynomial.
https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_ln_global.png
There is no question that the short-term variation in CO2 can be caused by short term weather patterns (ENSO) and seasonal variation like the seasonal leafing out of deciduous NH forests.
But the long term trend is another story. You can’t use correlation to decide cause and effect between two rising trends.
You have to study underlying mechanisms, then make predictions and test those with measurements.
Lots of this shown in this paper. Measurements of human emissions and measurements of the carbon fluxes going into land and ocean all over the globe. One key result is that ~ 45 % is retained in the atmosphere fairly consistently.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/
Nate, I suggest you read the paper you refer to. It’s largely based on models, several of them, so it really doesn’t support the point you were trying to make.
Robert,
I suggest you read what you reflect on this –
“A simple, but surprisingly accurate model for predicting global temperatures.”
Next time you’re gonna diss modulz, please recall that you did a curve fit based on an MA-3 and a fudge factor.
Nate says:
”You have to study underlying mechanisms, then make predictions and test those with measurements.”
LMao! We have been waiting for years for Nate to establish the mechanism that CO2 allegedly warms the surface in accordance with mainstream theory. All he does is point at blackbox models and assure us the physics is good.
May as well be doing science by reading corporate marketing materials.
“Nate, I suggest you read the paper you refer to. Its largely based on models, several of them, so it really doesnt support the point you were trying to make.”
I suggest you read it carefully, Robert.
It makes use of numerous measurements, such as ocean carbon fluxes.
And models are informed by decades of measurements of the carbon cycle.
“All he does is point at blackbox models and assure us the physics is good.”
And my stalker, Bill, is back for his springtime spreading of natural fertilizer.
the carbon cycle doesn’t explain how co2 warms the surface.
And thus, Bill, you are off topic for this thread.
that would make the reason you are talking about the carbon cycle off topic. just another speculation by corrupt scientists pretending they know the answer.
Nobody is allowed to talk about stuff that Bill doesnt want to talk about.
Who knew?
Another option is to go find other people to tr.oll!
Nate you just fired out an argument that the carbon cycle has nothing to do with future warming by calling warming not part of the topic.
Nate’s repeated attempts to deflect is why I stopped responding.
The analysis I’ve presented is open and transparent. It shows that whatever effect [CO2] has on temperature is overpowered by the effects of temperature on [CO2].
If temperature sensitivity to trace concentrations of CO2 were high, as many claim, then it would be reasonable to expect, given the optical/atmospheric mechanics of CO2 as a GHG, that the effects of CO2-induced warming on shorter time scales would be detectable; anthropogenic emissions have certainly fluctuated over decadal, and shorter periods. The only thing that can be detected in measured data is the influence of temperature on [CO2].
Bottom line, for periods from 1-10 years and longer, changes in [CO2] lag changes in temperature, usually by six months — establishing causality. The sensitivity for 10-year intervals is 4.9ppm/C meaning that temperature changes don’t appear to account for all of the 100ppm change in [CO2] over the last ~70 years.
Links repeated for convenience:
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend.png
https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_SH.png
Robert,
“Bottom line, for periods from 1-10 years and longer, changes in [CO2] lag changes in temperature, usually by six months”
You claim longer, but do not demonstrate that.
Whereas all agree that on shorter than 10 y time scales, CO2 is affected by ENSO and Volcanoes. This is has been much studied.
During El Ninos, atm CO2 rises, and the reason has been traced to its warming and drying of tropical land, which decreases rainforest growth, which decreases the CO2 sink.
The opposite occurs during La Nina.
But the long term rise to current CO2 levels, unprecedented in the ice core record, cannot be explained by any T effect.
For example in the ice core record, the cooling during the LIA, ~ 0.5 C, amounts to no more than 7 ppm reduction of CO2 levels.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GB004247
Figure 2.
Thus the rise in the last century of 140 ppm, simply cannot be due to the 1 C warming.
OTOH, we have a well known source of extrinsic carbon added to the atmosphere over the last century or so.
And about 45% of those additions are consistently retained in the atmosphere.
Robert,
“anthropogenic emissions have certainly fluctuated over decadal, and shorter periods. The only thing that can be detected in measured data is the influence of temperature on [CO2].”
Yes, as Roy Spencer recently showed, the short term emission variations are swamped by variations in natural sources and sinks. So he showed for example that the COVID emissions reductions of 2020-21, were smaller than the natural variation.
And since T also experiences significant natural short term variation, there is no reason to expect it to correlate with emissions variations.
But over the long term, the cumulative emissions correlate extremely well to the measured CO2 rise since the 1950s when continuous measurements began.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icum_global_co2_emissions_1950:2024_1900:2024_1958:2024corr2911013.png
I wrote: Bottom line, for periods from 1-10 years and longer, changes in [CO2] lag changes in temperature, usually by six months
Nate wrote: “You claim longer, but do not demonstrate that.”
I didn’t demonstrate that in the frequency domain because that’s difficult given the limitations of data set length and window interactions. However, the effects of 20-year processes would be detectable at 10 years as a changes in trajectory with changes in frequency, no such change is detectable. There is no detectable transition to a new process either in delay, or sensitivity. The second plot confirms that, but as I said, that’s a much more subjective approach. At 6ppm/C the long term sensitivity is slightly higher — as expected. Sensitivity was increasing with longer periods (lower frequency)
I wrote: “The sensitivity for 10-year intervals is 4.9ppm/C meaning that temperature changes dont appear to account for all of the 100ppm change in [CO2] over the last ~70 years.”
Nate wrote, as if to correct me: “But the long term rise to current CO2 levels, unprecedented in the ice core record, cannot be explained by any T effect.”
Sorry Nate, but the argument that temperature can’t account for all of the recent changes in [CO2], which I obviously agree with, is not an argument for [CO2] causing changes in temperature.
This is my favorite.
Nate wrote, as if to school me: “But the long term trend is another story. You cant use correlation to decide cause and effect between two rising trends.”
Nate then wrote: “But over the long term, the cumulative emissions correlate extremely well to the measured CO2 rise since the 1950s when continuous measurements began”. And just to prove the point provides a plot with two rising trends.
I guess the LLM ran out of memory.
“I wrote: The sensitivity for 10-year intervals is 4.9ppm/C meaning that temperature changes dont appear to account for all of the 100ppm change in [CO2] over the last ~70 years.
I agree.
Nate wrote, as if to correct me: But the long term rise to current CO2 levels, unprecedented in the ice core record, cannot be explained by any T effect.
Yes, because you claimed T caused CO2 variation on longer than 10 y time scales.
Then I’m sure what the entire point of your posts was, if in the end you are still agreeing that the CO2 rise was caused by anthro emissions, not temperature?
If your point was T variation causes CO2 variation, therefore CO2 variation cannot cause T variation, that is simply a non-sequitur.
Because both effects can be true.
The 140 ppm rise has caused ~ 1.1 C of warming according to GHE theory.
Short term temperature swings of 0.2 C are common, which would require 25 ppm CO2 swings, if the effect was linear.
Sorry, we have not been seeing short-term 25 ppm CO2 swings.
And the effect of CO2 on temperature is not supposed to be linear in any case, it is logarithmic.
So you have not remotely falsified the idea that CO2 rise has caused warming.
“ate wrote, as if to school me: But the long term trend is another story. You cant use correlation to decide cause and effect between two rising trends.
Still true.
“Nate then wrote: But over the long term, the cumulative emissions correlate extremely well to the measured CO2 rise since the 1950s when continuous measurements began. And just to prove the point provides a plot with two rising trends.”
First of all, they are not simply two rising trends. Both are non-linear rising trends, and the linear relationship between them shows that they have a quite similar non-linear rise.
Second Im not claiming this proves cause and effect. Im saying that it is entirely consistent with it.
Robert,
You claimed.
“If temperature sensitivity to trace concentrations of CO2 were high, as many claim, then it would be reasonable to expect, given the optical/atmospheric mechanics of CO2 as a GHG, that the effects of CO2-induced warming on shorter time scales would be detectable; anthropogenic emissions have certainly fluctuated over decadal, and shorter periods.”
This is wrong.
In this plot I have scaled and offset the log(CO2) variation to make it match the T rise over the last 60 y. Both are averaged over 12 months.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/log/offset:-2.5/scale:9/plot/gistemp/from:1960/mean:12/offset:0.1
You can clearly see that there are NO short term log(CO2) variations large enough to cause detectable short term T variation of any significance.
Nate says:
”as if to school me: But the long term trend is another story. You cant use correlation to decide cause and effect between two rising trends.
Still true.”
but nate totally unaware that in science you have to be consistent jumps all over validating the climate models because both the models and the observations have rising trends and all you need is a scale factor to make them match.
I said it last month and I’ll say it again…
I cannot believe this is real. ENSO events never have a sustained peak like this. There isnt even enough excess heat in the oceans to feed this peak. Something is seriously wrong here.
This is the effect of the 2022 Hunga volcano. After the SO2 cooling effect subsided after 12-18 months, we are left with the additional ~.3W/m2 from the additional stratospheric water vapor. Lookin at recent papers and the MLS measurements, this is not going away any time soon.
Paul, I am forced to agree with you, as the spike is quite unusual in its longevity. However, I notice the temperature level in Australia has dropped significantly to +0.4 in April with all the rain and clouds we have had in the east, so maybe we will see a drop in global temps next month. This spike goes well beyond a normal El Nino event that officially ended a month ago.
I have a set of several studies on HT’s effect in my stash. None of them show an RF of +0.3 W.m-2. It’s possible I’ve not read something you have so if you can cite the study where you got that figure it would be most appreciated.
But even assuming it is +0.3 W.m-2 that only accounts for a small portion of the +1.56 W.m-2 Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) reported by CERES. And, of course, as I’ve been saying repeatedly the spike in UAH is primarily the result of the transition from La Nina to El Nino. The EEI (which includes the HT effect) does help explain why this spike is higher than the previous spikes, but it’s ENSO that explains most of the swing from low to high and the timing.
bdgwx, the EEI is nonsense, as is your “understanding” of HTE.
The HTE has NOTHING to do with photon emission. The HTE was caused by the disruption of the Polar Vortex. This has been explained numerous times, but you reject anything that does not come from your cult. You even reject established physics!
“Something is seriously wrong here.”
Are you seriously going to repeat this mindless refrain every month from now on?
“There isnt even enough excess heat in the oceans to feed this peak. ” ?
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/GRAPHS/heat_content2000m.png
Arkady, please stop trolling.
It is not at all unusual for global temps following el Nino to peak in April. The surprise is not that the global temp response to el Nino has continued to April, but that it began so early.
Wakey wakey all you cookers out there.
Another record anomaly this morning.
Time to start regurgitating all your worn out arguments.
p.s. Have you heard about the frog in a beaker of hot water?
There is frost this AM.
There are no frogs active, never mind boiling in a beaker.
DMT,
You wrote –
“Wakey wakey all you cookers out there.”
Did you really mean “Wakey wakey all you coolers out there.”?
If you did, your attempted sarcasm transformed itself into a demonstration of ineptitude and sloppiness – hardly likely to engender much respect, I guess.
You are no doubt one of those fanatical GHE cultists who can’t describe the GHE!
I prefer science to religious fanaticism where there is disagreement between the two.
We obviously have different views. Carry on proselytising.
Good morning all.
Isn’t it nice to know there will be less snow and ice.
Summers in the northern latitudes will last longer and thus give us a longer growing season.
This is a good thing.
Also, the I’m not sure I understand the use of the terms “troglodyte, throwing your statement back in your teeth, grow up” etc.
Please people.
Stop it.
Nice! But not for these people:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/26/asia-heatwaves-philippines-bangladesh-india
Second year in a row of deadly heatwaves in April in South Asia.
But that’s ok, cuz its somewhere else, involving other people.
what makes you think that’s unusual, Nate?
40C? heck that was the standard for reducing certain outdoor activities in southern Texas in the early 1960’s for military basic training. . .which was hit multiple times during April the year i was there. we called it 104F though. and yes even then it was for the prevention of heat stroke in primarily 18-24 year olds. there is no evidence that co2 is making this more common.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
The continuing UAH record warmth is attributable exclusively to the sun, because total solar irradiance, TSI, has long exceeded the decadal threshold in 2023/2024. Here is the March CERES TSI composite:
https://i.postimg.cc/NMLfLZ17/CERES-TSI-Composite.jpg
This year is the 10th anniversary of my creation of my decadal sun-ocean warming threshold system of climate change. It’s general rule is:
Extreme weather events and climate extremes are limited by the duration of total solar irradiance extremes.
I’ll be back in a few days with the April CERES TSI update.
You show 1361.82 W/m2 for 2024 and 1361.62 W/m2 for 2000. That’s a difference of 0.2 W/m2 which is a radiative force of 0.2 W/m2 * 0.7 / 4 = +0.04 W/m2. The 12m average for 2000/04 is -0.19 C and for 2024/04 it is +0.79 C with the trend over the period being +0.27 C/decade yielding +0.55 C of warming. Do you really think the RF of +0.04 W/m2 from the Sun caused the 0.55 C of warming?
RF of +0.04 Wm-2 causing 0.55C of warming makes more sense than any amount of CO2 doing anything similar.
Ken, That is a sensitivity of 0.55 C / 0.04 W.m-2 = 13.75 C per W.m-2. According to CERES the planetary energy imbalance right now is +1.56 W/m2. You do the math.
bdgwx, both the “energy imbalance” and “sensitivity” values are nonsense. It’s all based on “curve fitting”. That ain’t science.
Interesting, according to your theory the years 2000 and 2022 should have been very warm also.
Were they?
According to the LT temperature chart above, both those years had relatively low temperatures.
bdgwx-
Your figures are not reality, they are the radiative forcing model, which isn’t “real” enough. Since the atmosphere lags the ocean, I don’t use atmospheric radiative forcing as it completely neglects the major ocean warming control of the atmosphere’s temperature.
https://i.postimg.cc/L4QZQd3J/UAH-LT-v-Had-SST3.jpg
Nate-
Your assumption is wrong. 2000 and 2022 were OHC building years.
Don’t assume the same TSI in 2002 will produce the same temperature (or change) in 2023. Excess solar energy above the amount needed to keep the ocean at the same temperature was absorbed from 2000 to 2023, adding heat, increasing the ocean surface temperature. The cumulative amount of ASR stored in 2000 was obviously less than in 2022 or 2023, so the temperature then was also less.
BW: Your figures are not reality, they are the radiative forcing model, which isnt real enough.
Radiative forcing is literally the 1LOT applied at TOA. It doesn’t get any more real than that.
BW: Since the atmosphere lags the ocean, I dont use atmospheric radiative forcing as it completely neglects the major ocean warming control of the atmospheres temperature.
First…that is patently false. RF represents the rate at which energy accumulates in the climate system…all of it…including the ocean. In fact, the ocean takes ~90% of this energy so it does the exact opposite of neglecting the ocean’s influence on atmospheric temperature.
Second…if you’re not using RF then you’re not using the 1LOT as part of your analysis. And by not using the 1LOT you’re analysis is already flawed.
Sorry bdgwx, that’s all wrong.
You’ve probably learned that from the cult. 1LoT does NOT deal with “radiative forcing”. It relates “work” to “heat”. A corollary of that is conservation of energy. But, flux is NOT energy. Energy is conserved, but flux is not. And the only REAL “radiative forcing” comes from Sun. The sky can NOT warm the ocean, except in very rare conditions. The vast majority of the time, the heat flow is from ocean to air.
FirstRF does NOT represent the “rate at which energy accumulates in the climate system.” Once again, your cult has misled you. “Thermal energy” accumulates, flux does not accumulate.
Secondif youre using RF then youre mis-using the 1LOT as part of your analysis. And by mis-using the 1LOT your analysis is already flawed.
Bob,
“Nate-
Your assumption is wrong. 2000 and 2022 were OHC building years.
Dont assume the same TSI in 2002 will produce the same temperature (or change) in 2023. Excess solar energy above the amount needed to keep the ocean at the same temperature was absorbed from 2000 to 2023, adding heat, increasing the ocean surface temperature.”
OK so you admit that
The continuing UAH record warmth is NOT attributable exclusively to the sun’s activity, and that other variables are at work?
I looked at the data you used for your March CERES TSI composite. The annual average of total solar irradiance varied by only 1.4 W/m^2 over the 2000 – 2023 period. The trend was a loss per decade of 0.0003 W/m^2.
I found other CERES data from 09/200203/2020.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/20b5913d-6daf-47b9-9bdf-e019af48ee98/grl62546-fig-0002-m.jpg
The global rate of absorbed solar radiation increased by 0.65 W/m^2 per decade during that time and the emitted thermal radiation went up by 0.24 W/m^2 per decade. The net energy change was an increase of 0.41 W/m^2.
These graphs have much more in common with the TLT data than your TSI graph.
Paper: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
Exactly. His 1LOT energy budget does not add up. And for those who may be unaware the paper you cited is authored by Norman Loeb…the same guy Bob Weber got his data from.
Is there data that shows solar irradiance at different frequencies across the whole EM spectrum from gamma rays down to radio waves?
Here is the Monckton Pause update. At it’s peak it lasted 107 months starting in 2014/06. Since 2014/06 the warming trend is +0.32 C/decade. As I’ve said before that is a lot of warming for a period that was supposed to be the be-all-end-all proof that warming had stopped.
“Here is the Monckton Pause update…”
Don’t worry, if next month’s anomaly is lower than this month’s, a new ‘pause’ will have begun.
Don’t forget Monckton’s original super-duper pause, which at one time ran for 18 years, from July 1997 until January 2016, before meeting its demise.
The decadal trend to date from the depths of that pause is now 0.15 degrees – pretty much the same as for the whole dataset.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202405.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_NH_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2024.pnghttps://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2024.pnghttps://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2024.pngYou can see the warming of the troposphere above the equator (but not near the surface).
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_AMJ_EQ_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2024.png
Like I said above I’m prepared to be wrong, but I think +1.05 C is going to be the peak of this ENSO cycle. If that’s the case then the lag between the peak of the ONI and UAH would be 4 months…right in line with expectations. I mention this now because there were discussions a couple of months ago about how it was looking like UAH TLT’s response to El Nino was peaking early. That’s clearly not the case now. What we’re seeing with UAH TLT now is very typical of other El Nino responses in the past.
What is ONI?
Found it!
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-variability-oceanic-nino-index
Some people use MEI to track ENSO as well. I’ve found ONI to be more correlated with UAH than MEI.
I think there is a lot of volcanic ash in the troposphere over the equator now, which will cause a cold winter in the southern hemisphere. This can already be seen from the temperature of Antarctica.https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/maps/gfs_samer-sat_t2anom_d1.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2024.png
Dr. Roy’s data provide more evidence that the rate of global warming is accelerating, as my most recent video shows:
https://youtu.be/zEVUQO8rld0
Mark, have you been able to come up with a viable description/definition of your GHE yet?
The last one you offered sounded like you had no understanding of the basic physics.
Mark, What periods do you use to determine acceleration/deceleration? Sudden acceleration of a warming trend doesn’t fit the conventional view of greenhouse warming, and equally sudden drops invalidate it too.
There’s natural variability, and long term trends, and I’d like you to be specific about the magnitudes you ascribe to both because that helps prove or disprove your theory.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1965/mean:120/plot/gistemp/from:1965/to:2009/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1965/trend/detrend:0.105/offset:0.035
This shows the 45 year trend up to 2009, and the T data up to the present. There appears to be accelerated warming in the last 15 years.
That was 10 year running mean. Here it is with 5 year mean.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1965/mean:60/plot/gistemp/from:1965/to:2009/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1965/trend/detrend:0.105/offset:0.035
“Time to start regurgitating all your worn out arguments.”
Here’s mine: Time for an audit.
Somebody’s device is broke.
Andrew
Ha! When everybody in the world’s devices seem to have broke, in unison, that might be time for rethinking your theory.
The father of global warming said rising CO2 levels would warm our Ice Age.
March 2024: 425.38 ppm
March 2023: 420.99 ppm
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Governments have increased the CO2 levels. One thing they did, was make China burn a lot coal. They also paid to burn wood to be used for electricity.
Though the warmth might have caused from an underwater volcanic explosion. Perhaps they can plan to use nuclear bombs to throw more water into the stratosphere??
Another possibility is rocket launches is adding water to stratosphere- we have getting a lot rocket launches, lately
“When everybody in the worlds devices seem to have broke, in unison”
“Everybody in the world’s” devices acting in unison, is also a red flag.
Andrew
Why is it that the only red flags Andrew cares about correspond to those we can read daily in Troglodytes’ outlets?
Willard,
Away with you, ankle-biter! 😉
Andrew
Bad Andrew, do you know of any two global average temperature dataset that have produced the exact same value for each and every month?
bdgwx,
I don’t look at global average temperature anything, except for this blog.
It’s squiggology. Wouldn’t waste my time. The only reason I commented recently here is because I because I happened to notice the skew for the last however long.
It’s indicative of potential process problems. Does it mean anything? I wouldn’t commit any beliefs to any it.
Andrew
Bad Andrew, I’m not aware of any two global average temperature datasets that produce the exact same values. Anyway, if you want to audit UAH you can do so. Their source code is now publicly available. I can’t post the link directly because the blog will block my post, but if you google for “uah satellite source code” the first link takes you to the site where it can be downloaded. There isn’t anything in the source code that I felt was egregiously wrong. That’s not to say I don’t have concerns with parts of their methodology that could have a significant effect on the warming trend. It’s just that I’ve found nothing that makes me want to dismiss the whole dataset.
bdgwx,
Thanks for the non-combative response. I may look at the code someday, but I think there’s more to the presentation of this graphic than just source code. I suspect there are elements to the process I will never be able to verify, detect, and/or know about.
All I can say from what is presented is that there is an abrupt and sustained deviation that would prompt troubleshooting.
Andrew
BA, I’m not seeing anything unusual with UAH right now. The atmospheric response from the transition from La Nina to El Nino is mostly inline with expectations. I will say that the 13m centered average is riding on the upper edge of the uncertainty envelop of my model, but I don’t think my model is fully capturing the significant aerosol reductions over the last few years. Keep in mind that the planetary energy imbalance as reported by CERES is running at +1.56 W.m-2 right now which is significantly higher than what it has been for most of the earlier part of the UAH record. That combined with the El Nino peak 4 months ago simultaneous with the solar peak forced UAH higher. Had you been tracking posts from Bellman, TheFinalNail, myself, and others we had been warming people not to eliminate the possibility that UAH TLT could exceed +1.00 C on this ENSO cycle especially if it was going to behave with the same 4-5 month lag behind ENSO that was typical in the past. Sure enough…that happened.
“Why is it that the only red flags Andrew cares about correspond to those we can read daily in Troglodytes outlets?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
How do you feel about pro-life freaks?
I remembered a few months ago there was a server error and data needed to be restored from a backup and this was going to take several days.
Something does look decidedly odd with these numbers. Here in the UK we have had a cold and damp spring and I see there is still snow in Canada. It just doesn’t seem the temperatures are aligning.
Still hoping that some warm weather will come our way.
Interestingly enough, the fan on our microwave oven wouldn’t shut off a couple of days ago. Internet resources indicated that the sensor got too hot from the stove underneath. The microwave oven had to be unplugged and the sensor cooled off before the fan would not run when the microwave is plugged in. Who knows what state of the microwave is now? I just know the fan isn’t running while the microwave is plugged in.
Just a semi-related semi-amusing anecdote.
Andrew
We won’t get the April UAH grid for a few days, but the March grid is not inconsistent with your observations.
“Here in the UK we have had a cold and damp spring and I see there is still snow in Canada.”
It’s been wet, but certainly not cold on average.
Compared with the 1991-2020 average, the UK Mean temperature was 1.0C above average in March, and 0.4C in April. And follows a February 2.2C above average.
I suspect people think it’s been cold becasue it’s also been very cloudy, so little direct sunshine and not so hot during the day.
“n the UK we have had a cold and damp spring and I see there is still snow in Canada. It just doesnt seem the temperatures are aligning.”
And yet in South Asia they had another deadly heat wave
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/26/asia-heatwaves-philippines-bangladesh-india
similar to last April.
The shower is hot, but the fridge is cold. I don’t think I’m going to get the average ambient temperature of my house by focussing on these locations….
Concordia Station Temperaturehttps://i.ibb.co/dGXkg9h/Screenshot-2024-05-02-18-10-55.png
https://i.ibb.co/dGXkg9h/Screenshot-2024-05-02-18-10-55.png
And?
It’s May 2 + 6 months = November 2 there, forgotten?
Solar wind
speed: 415.7 km/sec
density: 8.73 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 May 24
Sunspot number: 104
https://www.spaceweather.com/
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 135 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.49×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.6% Low
6 numbered spots
Solar Cycle Progression
April: 136.5
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
The averaged blue line is flat.
It needs to be about 160 for March, to remain flat.
May, not March.
Oh also:
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
29 April – 25 May 2024
Solar activity is expected to be at low levels with a chance for
M-class (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) activity over the outlook period.
Primarily contributors to flare probability include Region 3654
currently in the western hemisphere and a collective of active and
adjacent regions in the southern hemisphere which are due to return
to the visible disk over 08-10 May. —
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Yet solar cycle #24 and #25 have been smaller than recent cycles.
Earths geomagnetic field has been weakening possibly allowing for more atmospheric heating.
No papers to really support this line of thought. Just trying to include all the data.
Yes, the rise in temperature did surprise me.
Some, maybe most, think it was result of volcanic eruption that tossed millions of tons of water into the upper atmosphere, it apparently was a very large volcanic eruption, but it didn’t kill a lot of people- considering how it was. Other say it had do with new govt regulation and ocean cycles.
In terms of solar cycle, most agree that the Solar Grand Maximum, ended two solar cycles, ago and many think we entering the Solar Grand minimum. And many think there will be global cooling resulting from the solar grand min, once solar cycle 25 max, ends.
I think 25 max could end, fairly quickly, but NOAA latest solar 25 max, prediction is it will increase soon.
Or current the flat blue line, will rise, a lot.
And as said, for blue flat line to just remain flat, May needs to be about 160 sunspots.
And think May could be about 100 sunspots, or the average blue line going down.
Solar wind
speed: 417.6 km/sec
density: 1.91 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 03 May 24
Sunspot number: 125
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 142 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.39×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Low
7 numbered spot, 1 spot not numbered yet, and 2 spots going to farside. None yet, coming from farside
As a summary, I have been trying to predict solar activity on this blog, for more than a year, not sure when exactly but I believe before 2023 started.
My interest in it, is related to being able to guess, cosmic rays or also called Galactic Cosmic Rays [GCR] levels which are significant in terms of crewed Mars exploration. And what important is having some idea of GCR, about 2 years in the future. Which seems rather impossible to me, but not know much about it, I thought try to do it.
Or at least get idea of how wrong I could be.
Anyhow, I am getting some idea about it.
And this was prompted because Valentina Zharkova claim solar activity could predicted over very long time periods and that we were entering a somewhat short Grand Solar Min which would be followed another Solar Grand Max.
So, I wanted to know if she wrong or not.
Sunspots are still impossible to predict, but in terms of general levels of GRC, it may be possible.
Solar wind
speed: 455.1 km/sec
density: 2.09 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 08 May 24
Sunspot number: 144
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 204 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.93×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.3% Low
8 numbered spots. none going to farside or coming from it.
Solar wind
speed: 373.6 km/sec
density: 3.64 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 04 May 24
Sunspot number: 121
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 121 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.39×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.6% Low
6 numbered spots. The spot with highest given number, 3666, grew a lot. Other larger spot have grown in last 24 hours also.
And what looks like a bigger spot is coming from farside.
No spots going to farside within next couple days.
Solar wind
speed: 321.2 km/sec
density: 6.66 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 05 May 24
Sunspot number: 136
“Sunspot AR3663 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares. AR3664 is also developing a delta-class field, so it may start exploding soon as well.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 136 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.62×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.6% Low
7 numbered spots. The larger one coming from farside [3667] is 3rd
largest spot, with 3666 and then 3363 being bigger. 3363 is large cluster of moderate to large spots, and another large cluster with smaller spots is 3664.
no spots going to farside any time soon, and no other spot coming from farside, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 479.2 km/sec
density: 5.68 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 May 24
Sunspot number: 152
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 152 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.61×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Low
9 numbered spots. 1 is coming from farside.
2 developed on nearside [3668 and 3669].
None are going to farside within a day.
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
06 May – 01 June 2024
Solar activity is expected to be at moderate to high levels
(R1-R3/Minor-Strong) through 12 May as Regions 3663 and 3664 rotate
across the visible disk. Low to moderate levels are expected on 12
May-01 Jun.
There is a chance for S1-S2 (Minor-Moderate) solar radiation storm
levels on 06-13 May due to the flare potential of Regions 3663 and
3664. —
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Solar wind
speed: 507.2 km/sec
density: 2.00 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 07 May 24
Sunspot number: 148
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 171 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.81×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.7% Low
9 numbered spots, 1 leaving to farside
NASA IG: Major technical problems with Orion remain unsolved
“A just released report [pdf] by NASAs inspector general has found the major technical problems discovered after the first unmanned Artemis mission of Orion around the Moon remain unsolved, and threaten the safety of the astronauts that NASA plans to send around the Moon on the second Artemis mission.”
https://behindtheblack.com/
I’m not a scientist, but always follow the publications that Roy Spencer shares here. So, can anyone tells me (both sides) about the temperature being +1,05? Is it correlated to the global warming caused by human emitions of CO2, or is it correlated to the Nino over pacific ocean that now looks to be decreasing, but there is energy in oceans being dissipated in the atmosphere? Thanks.
David, we know the warming is not due to the CO2 nonsense. The best guess is that ocean oscillations are causing the warming trend. As you mentioned, El Niño was active for many months and possibly combined with the leftover effects from the Hunga-Tonga eruption over a year ago, pushing UAH temps to record highs.
David: Is it correlated to the global warming caused by human emitions of CO2, or is it correlated to the Nino over pacific ocean that now looks to be decreasing, but there is energy in oceans being dissipated in the atmosphere?
It’s both.
There’s something non-systematic causing the warming. It is pretty obvious.
Natural variation plus linear trend gives steps.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665440
Confirmed! UAH data continues to show the earth is in a warming trend.
As a retired operational meteorologist, I am not worried about it. Am I supposed to be?
What I’ve noticed over recent years is that global warming alarmists are comparing today’s instrumental data to proxy data, then making hysterical claims that today’s global warming is the fastest in 800,000 years, or 2.5 million years, or whatever time period they arbitrarily choose to scare the public with. And then some go as far to say humans are causing an extinction event.
Question – Is this valid scientific reasoning?
This leads to the problem of government policy makers. Should they be involved? And why in the heck are atmospheric researchers getting into the business of advocating policies that will create hardships for common working class people?
The Biden Administration (and their political allies) is pushing electric vehicles onto every American. Well guess what? I happen to be a Tesla Model-S owner of 10 years. And it is the most incredible motor vehicle I’ve own in my lifetime (and the most expensive). But I would never try to mandate electric vehicles onto the public. And the reason is simple. A battery electric vehicle is only viable if you have a garage with a 240V outlet so you can charge overnight. If you live in an apartment, you will be forced to compete against other mandated EV owners to search for an unoccupied public charging stall. And if you are successful, it will take by a factor of 10 more time to charge your BEV than what it would take to fill up at a gas station.
Anybody beginning to see the insanity in this? Let’s say if the global warming zealots are successful in forcing every American into a BEV. How much do you think this will lower global mean temperature if implemented? This is a point Christy and Spencer have made for several years. Dr. Christy testified before Congress that if we can make America disappear, the affect on global mean temperature would be so small, we could not measure it.
I am all for climate research, and many thanks go to Spencer and Christy for their contributions, and for sharing their findings with the public. But when climate researchers and public officials start advocating things, that should be a red flag.
Anybody agree?
Many good points there, Rob.
The evidence is that we’re in a natural warming trend, that started in the 1970s. Likely the warming is due to ocean oscillations. With the help of the Argo floats we’re learning more and more about the oceans. Possibly in another 50-100 years we will be able to actually predict such trends.
There is no need for any alarm. The GHE nonsense is NOT science. There isn’t even a viable description/definition of such a thing. The nonsense is based on political agenda and supported by a ragtag alliance ranging from children to phony intellectuals.
I think the result for April demonstrates how much uncertainty there is climate prediction and climate modeling.
As for the electric cars, in my experience any project that is motivated by panic will likely have problems. The success of any project is always in the planning stage. Problems in the planning stage become amplified in the execution phase.
Solar panels do not work at night when most people will charge their cars. Storage batteries add more cost. What is the panic? There is plenty of time to figure out how to make things more sustainable for the USA while 95% of the rest of the world’s population continues to increase their 90% of carbon emissions.
rob…”Confirmed! UAH data continues to show the earth is in a warming trend”.
***
Not really. The sat data shows a statistical warming but does not explain why or where the warming is occurring. I can tell you one thing, it is not happening in Vancouver, BC, Canada.
I don’t know if Roy has the time but I’d appreciate a breakdown of where the warming is showing up, and a possible explanation as to why.
The newer UAH data includes stratospheric elements whereas the original did not. I am wondering if the Hunga Tonga WV injected into the stratosphere is somehow affecting current readings.
Another possibility is the direct sunlight experienced by the sat telemetry. I know the telemetry is adjusted to allow for that but what if the frequency distribution of solar EM has changed?
This sudden jump in global temps the past few months suggests strongly there may be issues with the sat telemetry.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
DMT,
Do you need to give a keyboard a severe beating? It seems to be producing irrelevant repetitive nonsense.
DMT, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Mr. Asshat is being full of himself once again:
https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-shift-index-alert/climate-shift-index-alert-british-columbia-may-2024
Why are you such an impotent sock puppet?
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Cooling of the eastern North Pacific, very favorable for fishing and California sea lion.
https://i.ibb.co/wN58VF0/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
Winter is returning to Russia with snow and cold weather.
https://i.ibb.co/R78snBn/ventusky-rain-3h-20240511t0300-64n43e.jpg
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Indian voters are battling sweltering conditions to take part in the worlds biggest election as a severe heat wave hits parts of the country and authorities forecast a hotter-than-normal summer for the South Asian nation.
The India Meteorological Department (IMD) said a heat wave will affect parts of south and east India until the end of the week, including four states that are voting on Friday.
Parts of West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka are among 13 states and union territories voting in the second phase of India’s mammoth elections, with temperatures forecast to exceed 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in some areas.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/25/india/india-election-heat-wave-climate-intl-hnk/index.html
“severe heat wave hits parts of the country and authorities forecast a hotter-than-normal summer for the South Asian nation.”
Obviously, for a “normal” to exist, the series on which it is based must contain numbers both higher and lower than “normal”.
“Hotter than normal” is not only normal, it is absolutely essential – otherwise there can be no “normal” at all!
Whatever temperatures are being experienced, unless they exceed 90 C, they are not outside the range of surface temperatures.
If you live in a hot place, do not be surprised if you get hot.
Mike Flynn,
Obviously, you are braying. But about what?
Let me guess, without reading –
Obvious gotcha, irrelevant truisms, empty pontification.
Am I close, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
severe heat wave hits parts of the country and authorities forecast a hotter-than-normal summer for the South Asian nation.
Obviously, for a “normal” to exist, the series on which it is based must contain numbers both higher and lower than “normal”.
“Hotter than normal” is not only normal, it is absolutely essential otherwise there can be no “normal” at all!
Whatever temperatures are being experienced, unless they exceed 90 C, they are not outside the range of surface temperatures.
If you live in a hot place, do not be surprised if you get hot.
Mike Flynn,
Have you lost your quote marks because you do not know anything else than to use an iPad?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“Have you lost your quote marks because you do not know anything else than to use an iPad?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Why do you act as if you were Graham D. Warner’s attack dog desguised under a sock puppet?
Cheers.
“severe heat wave hits parts of the country and authorities forecast a hotter-than-normal summer for the South Asian nation.”
Obviously, for a “normal” to exist, the series on which it is based must contain numbers both higher and lower than “normal”.
“Hotter than normal” is not only normal, it is absolutely essential otherwise there can be no “normal” at all!
Whatever temperatures are being experienced, unless they exceed 90 C, they are not outside the range of surface temperatures.
If you live in a hot place, do not be surprised if you get hot.
Worried Wee Willy, realising he is looking quite stupid, responds –
“Mike Flynn,
Why do you act as if you were Graham D. Warner’s attack dog desguised under a sock puppet?
Cheers.”
I leave to others to choose the target of their sniggering, or derisive laughter.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Obviously, you are braying. But about what?
Let me guess, without reading –
Obvious gotcha, irrelevant truisms, empty pontification.
Am I close, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Why do you act as if you were Graham D. Warners attack dog desguised under a sock puppet?
Cheers.
“Obvious gotcha, irrelevant truisms, empty pontification.”
Then rinse and repeat.
Compelling arguments…not so much.
“Why do you act as if you were Graham D. Warners attack dog desguised under a sock puppet?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Silly sock puppet.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Time to check out the satellite telemetry, it is obviously not in step with what we are experiencing here on the surface.
ha ha ha ha ha!
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2024/05/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-05-01.gif
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2024/05/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2024-05-01.gif
RLH, what do your SavitzkyGolay graphs look like now?
bdgwx
Blindsley H00d aka RLH’s graphs aren’t based on a Savitzki-Golay filter.
They are simply cascaded triple running means based on Vaughan Pratt’s specification of the size of the consecutive simple running means.
But since, for example, a triple 60 month running mean has an inactive window of 60+50+39 = 149 months, RLH fills the running mean’s tail window half with Savitzky-Golay data and names that tail a ‘projection’ (what is certainly the reason why he never correspondingly fills the running mean’s head with the front of the same Savitzky-Golay data).
Ah ok. That’s good to know.
When you see a big sudden step in data it is not real
It is a big jump and it happened in all the satellite and surface databases.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/pages/latest/T/mth2.png
This looks real.
“This looks real.”
As real as colored squiggly lines ever did.
Andrew
Spoken like the proverbial frog.
Eben,
In a fully deterministic chaotic system, such behaviour is to be expected.
The IPCC states “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system . . . “, and, assuming that the data used by Dr Spencer is part of the “climate system”, then I would expect this data to also vary chaotically – even if such variations appear counter intuitive, from time to time..
It really doesn’t matter, does it? Panicking is going to make no difference.
If my speculation about the causal relationship of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to global temperatures is correct (CO2 creates no heat at all), then it might be worthwhile looking for real, rather than imaginary, sources of heat. Dr Spencer appears to be at least open to the possibility that heat from anthropogenic sources may be responsible for measured temperature increases.
Time will tell, I suppose.
I think you ought to ask Dr. Roy if he thinks it’s real, Eben. After all, it’s his dataset.
“Spoken like the proverbial frog.”, says another fanatical GHE cultist, who can’t even describe the GHE!
Just blind faith in the cult predictions of doom! doom! doom!
In the future of course – where, when, how much, what – all to be advised.
What a load of rubbish!
What next? Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is bad?
[laughing as usual]
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
“Step 3 Saying Stuff”
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Time to check out the satellite telemetry, it is obviously not in step with what we are experiencing here on the surface. ”
This of course is needed ONLY in case of satellite telemetry temperature data being unusually HIGH.
Unusually low temperatures are always perfect for Coolistas.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Unusually heavy seasonal rains have left a vast swath of southern Russia and Central Asia reeling from floods, with dozens of people dead in Afghanistan and Pakistan and tens of thousands forced to flee their homes in Kazakhstan and Russia.
Authorities say the flooding the atypical intensity of which scientists blame on human-driven climate change is likely to get worse, with more rain predicted and already swollen rivers bursting their banks.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/flooding-russia-kazahkstan-afgahnistan-deaths-evacuations-2024-climate/
Ren must have missed this one.
“Authorities say the flooding the atypical intensity of which scientists blame on human-driven climate change is likely to get worse”
Yes, and Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, and Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize.
Does your gullibility exceed your ignorance, or vice versa?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Your incredulity is duly noted.
Only can do something about it.
What do you intend to do, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
“Authorities say the flooding the atypical intensity of which scientists blame on human-driven climate change is likely to get worse”
Yes, and Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, and Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize.
Does your gullibility exceed your ignorance, or vice versa?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
I will take your copypasta as a yes.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
“Authorities say the flooding the atypical intensity of which scientists blame on human-driven climate change is likely to get worse..”
Yes, and Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, and Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize.
Does your gullibility exceed your ignorance, or vice versa?
You may take my comment anyway and anywhere you like. Am I supposed to care?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet,
I will take your copypasta as a yes.
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Here you are, in my thread, almost denying being Mike Flynn.
Silly sock puppet!
“Here you are, in my thread, almost denying being Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You are a silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
You forgot about the snowfall in Afghanistan, which froze the flowers of fruit trees and is having critical economic consequences for many families.
You forgot that the newsie above was five days ago:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/heat-wave-asia-2024-deaths-india-severe-weather-climate-change/
You can’t win that kind of contest in a warming world, Ren.
“You cant win that kind of contest in a warming world, Ren.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
No U.
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Here you are, in my thread, almost denying being Mike Flynn.
Silly sock puppet!
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
This way please.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
always ends up
…winning the argument.
gaslighting
No, winning the argument.
gaslighting…again
Definitely winning the argument.
Apparently some people feel that in a debate, they dont need to make a convincing argument. All they have to do is declare themselves the winner.
Must be all the participation trophies the 13th place kids have been getting lately.
if that were the case then you would have gotten one too Nate
like when Nate failed to acknowledge the stark difference between ”can be considered” and ”is”.
it would only be so if the gravitational pull of the earth were suddenly switched off via the conservation of energy law.
failing to recognize that wouldn’t disqualify nate from receiving a participation trophy.
So Nate would receive partial credit for getting the math right and just missing on a fact.
Gill forgets that in the world of Moon Dragon cranks, the surface of the ball “can be considered” the center of mass of the ball.
ROOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLL
Little Willy loses another one.
as usual he is clueless as to even what is going on.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
LLLLLLLLLLMMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOO
see what i mean. parents should supervise their children.
Funny that Gill finds his own practice of laughing out loud so childish.
Little Willy loses another one.
The new new pause continues: Another month at WUWT with no “new pause” articles. No “new pause” articles on WUWT for 9 months; how long will this new pause go?
That’s a problem for “skeptics” because it disagrees with their theories, and as Feynman said: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is… If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Arkady,
“Thats a problem for skeptics because it disagrees with their theories”
What theories are you referring to? Can’t or won’t say?
Which makes your excellent partial Feynman quote rather pointless.
Feynman also pointed out in a Cornell University lecture that one cannot prove a vague theory wrong. This is because vague theories lead to vague or indefinite consequences. Feynman said of testing vague outcomes: “with a little skill any experimental result can be made to look like an expected consequence. He argued if you cannot make precise predictions from your guess, then you cannot claim to know anything about it”.
With regard to the GHE, nobody can even describe it, making guesses as to its method of operation completely meaningless.
But carry on avoiding saying anything that can be remotely considered scientific, if you wish.
Bang on on about skeptics and non-existent theories. CO2 warms nothing. Climate does not control weather. You can’t describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality.
Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong. Take all the time you want. I’m capable of laughing at you while you waste your time trying to do the impossible.
Don’t blame me because you are ignorant and gullible.
Mike Flynn,
As Feynman once said –
> I learned from her that every woman is worried about her looks, no matter how beautiful she is.
Do you mind looking like a silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
“Do you mind looking like a silly sock puppet?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
As Feynman once said –
> How much do you value life? Sixty-four.
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
“What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Why do you insist in invoking Graham D. Warner’s spirit?
Never mind answering, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Why does the surface temperature in Antarctica reach the average temperature of the tropopause in winter? The answer is simple: the Earth’s troposphere is an extremely thin layer, and only due to rotation and circulation does the temperature not reach lethal values. When the circulation slows down immediately extreme values appear.
https://i.ibb.co/10KBdnr/zt-sh.gif
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
The AmundsenScott South Pole Station is located on the high plateau of Antarctica at 9,301 feet (2,835 m) above sea level. It’s getting colder down there, so one might expect low temperatures at the surface.
It is the tropopause jet current that is the creator of weather, and its strength and course depend on the speed of rotation and pressure in high latitudes.
https://i.ibb.co/ysk6YkG/ventusky-wind-200hpa-20240503t0600.jpg
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_AMJ_NH_2024.png
With land-based records down to the +0.6’s for April (using the UAH baseline), this is more evidence that the surface temperature is not what satellites are reading.
AQ,
You wrote –
“. . . this is more evidence that the surface temperature is not what satellites are reading.”
And you are concerned because . . . ?
Do meteorological “atmospheric temperatures” read by any means change anything at all? Fanatical GHE cultists like yourself seem fixated on supposed and completely meaningless “air temperature” for no reason that you can explain.
Sounds like a mental affliction to me.
Flynsson
” Sounds like a mental affliction to me. ”
Says this blog’s mentally most deranged boy.
” Bindidon, please stop tr0lling. “
“Flynsson”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bellman pointed out that the UK average temperature in the UK in April was 0.4 degrees above average.
This is only half the story.
The night time temperatures were 0.8 degrees higher whilst the daytime temperatures were 0.4 lower.
April has been unusually cloudy this year in the UK, which explains this difference.
More importantly is how this effects Energy use. Most of us have our heating turned down during the night when we are snuggled up in bed. However when we wake up we are using more energy to compensate for the lower daytime temperatures.
mark wapples: “The night time temperatures were 0.8 degrees higher whilst the daytime temperatures were 0.4 lower. ”
I think you are a bit off there. Night temps were 0.85C above average, day time was 0.04C below average, not 0.4.
“April has been unusually cloudy this year in the UK, which explains this difference.”
As I said in my comment – I think that’s why there is a perception of it being a cold month, that and the fact the second half was colder than the first.
But I was addressing the claim that the UK had had a cold spring, which was being used to suggest the UAH global averages were wrong.
Here are the anomalies I get for the UK, for the year so far.
Month TMEAN TMAX TMIN
1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3
2 2.2 2.0 2.4
3 1.0 0.8 1.3
4 0.4 0.0 0.8
Only January could be said to be slightly below average. And this is compared with the warm 1991-2020 period. Compared to temperatures last century, 2024 has been much warmer. Here’s the same compared to the 1961-1980 period.
Month TMEAN TMAX TMIN
1 0.9 1.1 0.6
2 3.3 3.4 3.3
3 2.2 2.1 2.4
4 1.6 1.4 1.7
What is your reason for using tMean?
Blindsley H00d
What is your reason for asking?
Explanation.
I used TMEAN because it was a comparison with UAH data, which is average temperature, not maximum temperature.
Honestly, the desperation at the moment is quite palpable. On WUWT I’ve just been told that the concept of a global average is an “extreme left wing” concept.
” Explanation. ”
No, Blindsley H00d.
One more of your attempts to discredit Tmin in favour of your beloved Tmedian, for sure.
You failed here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k8oNXAY0hFrkcRo7x5eEVTEWBGsAK-CX/view
here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FEoidp-brB2oZ_WyCnHNXZxW8pHS32JI/view
and here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AaxFh4QW5DTv7KH42H9DmSFGl68qJYRh/view
Bellman
” On WUWT Ive just been told that the concept of a global average is an extreme left wing concept. ”
This is the definitive ‘heartlandization’ of WUWT.
Never seen so many posts from aggressive, harsh barking dogs like bnice2000.
Nor posts from WUWT’s uncertainty mafia (Tillman, Gorman, Karlomonte and their groupies) discrediting any comment with ‘Where is your uncertainty calculation?’ but never being able to produce these very same uncertainty calculations by their own.
To be fair karlomonte once calculated the monthly uncertainty of UAH at “3.6 C”. He did this by computing the variance of the values in the grid (which is an acceptable type A methodology) and got 169 K^2 as the variance. He then took the 4th root of that to get “3.6 K”. When Bellman and I pointed out that the 4th root of K^2 couldn’t possibly be an uncertainty because that has units of K^(1/2) he continued to defend his calculation.
BTW…the type A formula for uncertainty is sqrt(variance^2 / N). Using N = 9508 (the number of filled cells in the grid) you get sqrt(169 K^2 / 9508) = 0.13 K which is very close to the type A evaluation I get when comparing UAH to RSS and the 0.20 K value from the type B method Christ et al. 2003 used.
bdgwx
” When Bellman and I pointed out that the 4th root of K^2 couldnt possibly be an uncertainty because that has units of K^(1/2) he continued to defend his calculation. ”
This is exactly their behavior.
*
” BTWthe type A formula for uncertainty is sqrt(variance^2 / N). Using N = 9508 (the number of filled cells in the grid) you get sqrt(169 K^2 / 9508) = 0.13 K… ”
Thank you for this information.
The exact number of cells in UAH’s 2.5 degree grid is… 9504 (66 times 144).
Yes. Good catch. 9504.
Why tMean rather than tMedian? You do know statistics?
More than you ever will, Richard.
So with all your knowledge of statistics tell me why tMean over tMedian then.
I was talking about bdgwx, Richard, whom is a real formal guy.
By contrast to you, who’s a coder who pretends being one.
So I will wait for bdgwx statistical reason for using tMean over tMedian then.
You could also commit to a specific claim and make an argument for it, Richard.
tMedian is better than tMean for things such as average temperatures.
“The median of a data set is often considered a better measure of center than the mean when the data set contains outliers or skewed distributions.
I’m referring to tMean here because that’s what UAH uses. But if you’re asking me which of a mean or median is better then the answer is both have advantages and disadvantages. Neither is better in all scenarios. I will say one reason people often use a mean for temperature is because (when done appropriately) it can be used in equations that relate temperature to energy. For example, if UAH says the global average temperature of the troposphere increased by 0.5 C I can estimate that it took 1 kj/kg.C * 0.5 C * 3.85e18 kg = 1.9e18 kj of energy assuming negligible changes in mass, specific heat capacity, or latent sources. We can’t use the same procedure with the global median temperature.
Are you claiming that tMean is not skewed?
RLH, it depends on what you mean by “skewed”. If you mean “gives the wrong result” then I gave you an example where tMedian is “skewed” or gives the wrong result while tMean is not “skewed” or gives the right result.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Skewed has a very specific meaning in statistics. Look it up.
I suggest you read that sentence again, Richard:
> I gave you an example where tMedian is skewed or gives the wrong result while tMean is not skewed or gives the right result.
“Neither is better in all scenarios.”
Not sure why RLH doesnt get this, and keeps missing the point.
RLH, keep in mind that I said nothing about tMean being skewed or not. You made it sound like I did so I was left with no other choice than to infer your meaning based on what I said. So you’ll have to forgive me for not playing your cat and mouse game the way you wanted. In the interest of saving everyone time perhaps you could simply put into words what you actually intended to ask instead of expecting me to read your mind.
” Why tMean rather than tMedian? You do know statistics? ”
For the stubborn, opinionated pseudo-statistician ‘RLH’ (I have good reasons to name him ‘Blindsley H00d’) I repeat that until now he still was not able to disprove my results showing the lack of a relevant difference between TMEAN and TMEDIAN when comparing them within time series like USCRN.
Here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k8oNXAY0hFrkcRo7x5eEVTEWBGsAK-CX/view
here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FEoidp-brB2oZ_WyCnHNXZxW8pHS32JI/view
and here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AaxFh4QW5DTv7KH42H9DmSFGl68qJYRh/view
*
All what Blindsley H00d is able to do is to refer to general statements he picks up out of articles, or to present a school boy evaluation of USCRN which, ‘by accident’, lacks exactly what I have shown extensively enough in the three graphs above:
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values-3.jpg?w=1024
RLH,
And if by “skewed” you mean the metric has a disproportionate number of values lower than it vs higher than it then you can rest easy knowing that I never said tMean isn’t immune from being “skewed” by that definition like would be the case with an asymmetric distribution.
That line of discussion is completely irrelevant to this subthread. The reason Bellman and I used tMean is because that’s what UAH used. And the reason why datasets use tMean in general is because it (unlike tMedian) has a relationship with energy. And if you go back up and read mark wapples post starting this subthread you’ll see his question is in regards to energy usage. If we’re only given the option of using tMean or tMedian then answering mark wapple’s question can only be done using tMean since tMedian will give you the wrong answer.
Pseudomod, May 8, 2024 at 3:17 AM
” bdgwx, please stop tr0lling. ”
What’s the matter with you, Pseudomod?
There is only ONE tr0ll here, and that’s RLH – and no one else.
Keep your ‘please stop tr0lling’ for corners like GHE or the lunar spin denŷal, please, and keep off technical threads you don’t understand anything of.
Shut up.
Graham D. Warner is tilting once again.
“Shut up. ”
What?
You, Pseudomod, professional denier of any valuable science, tell me to shut up?
Ha ha ha.
Who are you, Pseudomod? A MOTL/MOTR nobody who thinks he can reduce the complexity of motions to stoopid, trivial thoughts.
Shut up, Bindidon.
Im shocked, shocked, to find that tro.lling is going on in here!
And by the tr.oll police no less!
A desperate, obsessive stalker appears.
And, since 4:54 pm, he is no more.
Another obsessed fan appears.
Ten warmest ENSO seasons (July-June):
1. 2023-24 +0.87 (10 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.
AQ,
Maybe you could demonstrate your vast scientific knowledge, and explain the reasons for the “Ten warmest ENSO seasons” (whatever an ENSO season happens to be)?
No? Just acting the goat, are you?
[what a dimwit]
> Maybe you could demonstrate
Step 2 – Sammich Request
You’re looking very wethered, kid.
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
AQ,
Maybe you could demonstrate your vast scientific knowledge, and explain the reasons for the Ten warmest ENSO seasons” (whatever an ENSO season happens to be)?
No? Just acting the goat, are you?
[what a dimwit ]
I see you’re on the search for a buck, doe.
“I see youre on the search for a buck, doe.”
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Top 10 G.O.A.T.s (as ranked by Mike Flynn / Swenson):
10. Serena Williams
9. Heather McKay
8. Muhammed Ali
7. Mark Spitz
6. Roger Federer
5. Shane Warne (**)
4. Lionel Messi
3. Michael Jordon
2. Don Bradman
1. Antonin Qwerty
** Chuckers excluded from reckoning
“ranked by Mike Flynn / Swenson)”
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Yes Arkady, please leave Flynn alone so he can focus on my posts.
“Yes Arkady, please leave Flynn alone so he can focus on my posts.”
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Merely helping you out Mikey.
Good list BTW. Well done on leaving out the chucker.
“Merely helping you out Mikey.”
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Your replies are looking very ovine, Mikey.
I’d suggest you put yourself on the mutton market, but I suspect you’re pasture ewes-buy date.
“Your replies are looking very ovine, Mikey.”
Antonin, please stop trolling.
What sentence could just as easily be spoken at a sheep husbandry lecture as at an IT lecture?
.
.
.
.
.
.
“You” can never get enough RAM.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Have you factored into your conclusion that ENSO is a minor player wrt the AMO and PDO and that we are likely in a cycle involving them all where global temps rise? Tsonis et al revealed in a study dating back a century that when the oscillations are in phase, global temps rise, and when out of phase, temps fall.
Tsonis himself reasoned that we should stop pursuing theories about anthropogenic warming and look more closely at ocean oscillation and their interaction. Of course, no one has bothered since all the money is available only for producing lies about the AGW.
Yet again, out of all the papers out there, you choose ONE that you misinterpret as supporting your agenda, and ONLY for the reason that you believe it supports your agenda. You certainly do not have an understanding of his methods which would enable to to make that choice independently of your agenda.
If you had read his work properly you would have understood that his claim was that such a coupling leads to a CHANGE in the climate state, NOT necessarily a warming. He is describing the surges and “pauses”, which pre-trend would have been rises and fall. He describes four such couplings in the 40th century, two which lead to rises, one which lead to a fall, and then the “pause” which was a fall superimposed on a steeply rising trend.
At NO stage does he say anything like “we should stop pursuing theories about anthropogenic warming”. That is YOUR invention. In a different article (not a paper) after discussing climate variability he says “So, do I think that there is an anthropogenic influence on climate? I actually do” … and then proceeds to discuss this.
But at least I suppose I should thank you for withdrawing me from participating in Flynn’s tr011ing game by actually supplying something to debate, something which he is incapable of doing.
(Dr Spencer … Please DO NOT approve my 1st attempt at this comment which was posted under a mis-spelled name.)
Yet again, out of all the papers out there, you choose ONE that you misinterpret as supporting your agenda, and ONLY for the reason that you believe it supports your agenda. You certainly do not have an understanding of his methods which would enable to to make that choice independently of your agenda.
If you had read his work properly you would have understood that his claim was that such a coupling leads to a CHANGE in the climate state, NOT necessarily a warming. He is describing the surges and “pauses”, which pre-trend would have been rises and fall. He describes four such couplings in the 40th century, two which lead to rises, one which lead to a fall, and then the “pause” which was a fall superimposed on a steeply rising trend.
At NO stage does he say anything like “we should stop pursuing theories about anthropogenic warming”. That is YOUR invention. In a different article (not a paper) after discussing climate variability he says “So, do I think that there is an anthropogenic influence on climate? I actually do” … and then proceeds to discuss this.
But at least I suppose I should thank you for withdrawing me from participating in Flynn’s tr011ing game by actually supplying something to debate, something which he is incapable of doing.
40th should clearly be 20th
AQ,
You may debate to your heart’s content.
You still can’t describe the GHE, can you?
Science is not about debate – it’s about facts. 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.”
If you can’t even describe the GHE, then you can hardly come up with a theory to explain it, can you?
Best you stick to debating. If you do it in front of a mirror, you’ll only lose half the time, won’t you?
Give it a try.
Swenson’s ‘theory’ is that the Earth has only ever cooled for the last 4.5 By.
But its about the facts. And the facts show that the Earth WARMED significantly 20,000 years ago. And again, in the last century.
As Feynman said It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.
Hence, Swenson’s ‘theory’ is simply wrong.
Oh well, he will keep believing it anyway.
How do we tell that the deniers have lost the argument yet again?
Because Flynn jumps in to “save” them yet again with a change of subject. Can’t allow them to continue traversing that losing path, now can we Mikey.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Clint R says:
“We’re all surprised by this result, but we know it’s not caused by CO2. CO2 can not raise temperatures. Dr. Spencer mentioned a likely cause: This is usually an indication of extra heat being lost by the surface to the deep-troposphere through convection, and is what is expected due to the waning El Nino event.”
Dr. Spenser also has repeatedly tried to explain the Greenhouse Effect to people like you. I guess he’s “just another child of the cult.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/
Clint R also openly and proudly rejects the 1LOT. He has called the planetary energy imbalance (which is nothing more than the 1LOT applied at the top of the atmosphere) nonsense at least twice in this blog post alone. If he cannot be convinced that the law of conservation of energy is reality in its most fundamental form then nobody will ever be able to explain how the GHE works in a way he can understand.
Seriously WRONG, bdgwx. I have never rejected 1LoT. You may be trying to get me to use the “L-word”. But, I don’t stoop to the level of your cult. You may actually believe what you say. You may be that ignorant.
Conservation of energy deals with “energy”. Flux is NOT energy. You may be so ignorant of physics you do not understand that.
b,
You are obviously a fanatical GHE cultist, if you are making some staggeringly bizarre statement like “energy out equals energy in”!
Complete nonsense. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. Energy out has manifestly exceeded energy in!
You babble about the “law of conservation of energy”, trying to sound like you know what you are talking about, but it is obvious that you don’t. Go on, educate me – if you wish. What is the relevance of the law of the conservation of energy to the cooling Earth?
You really have no idea, do you? You cannot describe the GHE, but then nobody can, so you imagine that appealing to your own authority might magically make a planet heat up!
I suppose you are mad enough to claim that you can explain something that you cannot describe, are you? The GHE, for example.
Not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?
Sorry Craig T, but Spencer would be more of a “thorn-in-the-side” to your cult. He has admitted physics is not his area of expertise. So he doesn’t debunk the GHE nonsense based on physics, he debunks it based on his knowledge of climate and weather, with a little “common sense” thrown in. I have no problem with that.
A “child of the cult” is someone that has been completely indoctrinated and can no longer think for themselves. They will believe anything the cult puts out. They will childishly spew any nonsense to support their cult, such as claiming that ice cubes can boil water or passenger jets fly backward. They rely on insults and false accusations when their beliefs are debunked, just as bdgwx demonstrates above.
True, Spencer is a thorn in the side of climate scientists but he still is educated. He never “debunk(ed) the GHE nonsense”, he doesn’t believe it could significantly warm the planet above preindustrial levels.
“But while I am in general supportive of questioning even our most cherished and long-held scientific beliefs, I do not yet see a reason for abandoning the basic physics of the greenhouse effect.”
Clint – Out of curiosity, do you ever wear a jacket? Don’t you know that a jacket can never warm you above your core body temperature?
“Don’t you know that a jacket can never warm you above your core body temperature?”
–
Please explain, why we take the jacket off in a warm sunny day?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
True Cristos, but I expect Clint to say since the jacket is cooler than your body it would violate the 1LoT for it to cause you to overheat.
May3, we had a sunny morning in Athens. Air was cold, jacket was warm in the sun, and we needed the jacket on, because without jacket it felt cold.
Air was not warmed by the sun, because it is transparent to solar EM energy.
Jacket got warmed by the sun.
It was not comfortable to take off the jacket, because the air was cold.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Wrong again, Craig T. Real objects do NOT violate 1LoT. You and your cult are the ones that violate the laws of thermo.
Craig T,
You wrote (obviously in a fit of madness) –
“Clint Out of curiosity, do you ever wear a jacket? Dont you know that a jacket can never warm you above your core body temperature?”
What sort of a silly gotcha is that?
Don’t you know that the surface of the Earth is no longer molten, showing that it has cooled? Don’t you know that during the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat?
Obviously not – you don’t seem to know much about reality at all, do you?
CO2 has no heating powers. None. So sad, too bad.
Off you go now, and try to dream up some more irrelevant and pointless analogies, trying to avoid admitting that you can’t describe the mythical GHE. Good luck.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“True Cristos, but I expect Clint to say since the jacket is cooler than your body it would violate the 1LoT for it to cause you to overheat.”
Why would you think that your “expectations” carry any value at all?
Craig T, please stop trolling.
“Jacket got warmed by the sun.”
You really think jackets don’t keep you warm on cloudy days, or at night?
Sees very strange…
Nate,
“Jacket got warmed by the sun.
You really think jackets don’t keep you warm on cloudy days, or at night?
Sees very strange”
–
A jacket is an insulator. Insulator, when absorbing solar energy, gets warmed.
So, why the warmed by the sun jacket “sees very strange” to you?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’ll repeat the question, Christos.
You really think jackets dont keep you warm on cloudy days, or at night?
Craig T
Clint R is also a full time member of the lunar spin denial mafia on this blog (the people who think, like do 5 year old children, that the Moon doesn’t rotate because it shows always the same face to us).
I’ve had the sense to stay away from this page for a few years but I fully remember Clint and his position that objects moving through space must turn like horses on a racetrack.
Craig T
” … his position that objects moving through space must turn like horses on a racetrack. ”
Not quite. According to the lunar spin deniers, this hold only for planetary satellites.
After all, Craig T: does Earth not rotate about is polar axis?
Bindi and Craig, why tr0ll here? If you believe you understand orbital motion, then please supply a valid model of “orbiting without spin”.
If you can’t put up, then shut up.
As usual, Clint R is utterly wrong.
Like most 5-year-old children, he does not understand that the Moon and Earth are both celestial bodies that are born in an accretion disk and therefore both rotate on an internal axis.
Trying to supply a ‘valid model of orbiting without spin’ makes no sense to adults.
*
Instead of discrediting and denigrating as ‘astrologers’ all people who scientifically confirmed the lunar spin and proved it is the cause for Moon’s apparent, optical libration effects:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
Clint R should have the courage to scientifically disprove all these results obtained since centuries by several different observation tools and observation data processing methods.
Bindi, you should know by now that endless rambling ain’t science. The simple ball-on-a-string debunks anything that says Moon spins.
Where’s your model of “orbiting without spin”? It’s way past time for your to put up.
Put up or shut up.
The solar accretion model is one of desperation at best. It does no explain how debris formed into spheres with the proper momentum to be in orbit.
Clint and the rest of us non-spinners have proved over and over how the the spinners since Cassini are wrong. None of them has ever proved scientifically that the Moon rotates on a local axis and you have supplied no evidence to the contrary.
craig t…none of us have argued about objects moving through space, only about an orbiting body that keeps the same face pointed at Earth. In that capacity, the Moon moves exactly like a race horse on a track.
Gordon Robertson
A racehorse on a track has to continuously rotate on its axis as it runs around a curve. If it did NOT rotate it would run straight off the track. You do not comprehend each step requires a little rotation. No logic can get though that closed mind of yours.
“No logic can get though that closed mind of yours.”
Norman, please stop trolling.
Instead of discrediting and denigrating as astrologers all people who scientifically confirmed the lunar spin and proved it is the cause for Moons apparent, optical libration effects:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
Clint R should have the courage to scientifically disprove all these results obtained since centuries by several different observation tools and observation data processing methods.
Robertson
” None of them has ever proved scientifically that the Moon rotates on a local axis and you have supplied no evidence to the contrary. ”
You are lying, as always.
The list of scientific material I posted above proves the lunar spin ad nauseam but you try to deny these results with dumb ideas which any child would laugh about these days.
YOU, Robertson, belong to the ignoramuses who never would be able to disprove these results.
Nor would you ever be able to explain how Tobias Mayer computed in 1750 the same period for the lunar spin as today’s scientists obtained.
YOU are the one who behaves dishonest enough to claim all these treatises and reports would have to do with Moon’s libration – despite it is visible to anybody that they have to do with its rotation about an internal axis.
Your never changing lack of technical skills, scientific knowledge and experience we all can see here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1664818
Bindi, you don’t understand anything about the Moon issue. You just believe whatever your cult tells you. Neither you nor Norman knows anything about this issue. Norman doesn’t understand the difference between “changing direction” and “axial rotation”.
And neither of you has a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
As usual, you’ve got NOTHING.
Worse yet, you won’t shut up….
“The simple ball-on-a-string debunks anything that says Moon spins.”
A ball on a string has one side constrained, when taut the string applies a force to the edge of the ball. In contrast gravity pulls on the center of mass of an orbiting object. For an object to “orbit without spin” it would maintain its orientation in relation to the fixed stars while in orbit.
Well you started off okay Craig, but your conclusion was a disaster.
Gravity can be considered to be acting on CoM. That’s why the string is such a good model for gravity. But, a better model would be a string tied to every molecule on Moon, or the ball. When you understand that gravity has the same effect on both sides, and all parts, then you can see how it can change the direction. And changing direction is NOT axial rotation. (If the ball were actually spinning, the string would wrap around it. If Moon were actually spinning, we would see all sides of it.)
I predict you STILL won’t understand, because I can recognize your tendency to cultism. You hate reality, and you despise those that bring it to you.
Prove me wrong.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“For an object to “orbit without spin” it would maintain its orientation in relation to the fixed stars while in orbit.”
Unfortunately, all sides of the Moon would then be visible from the Earth, which would lead many to the conclusion that it was “spinning”. This perception would be enhanced by noting that the Earth would rise and set in the lunar sky, in the same way the Sun rises and sets in the terrestrial sky, which leads to the conclusion that the Earth is “spinning”.
If you happened to be a fanatical GHE cultist trying to avoid admitting that you cannot describe the GHE, you could define “spinning” to be “not spinning” (much like “slow cooling” is “not cooling” or “heating”).
Or just say that the Moon is simultaneously spinning and not spinning (true), and accept that nobody really cares about your opinion anyway. Have you figured out the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? What about each night?
Maybe the GHE heats and cools simultaneously, and at other times does nothing at all?
That would cover pretty much everything, wouldn’t it?
“Gravity can be considered to be acting on CoM. Thats why the string is such a good model for gravity. But, a better model would be a string tied to every molecule on Moon, or the ball.”
The string acts on a single point on the outside of the ball, making it a terrible model for gravity. The molecules of the Moon have greater cohesion than the force of gravity acting on the molecules. (Otherwise the Moon would disintegrate and form a ring around Earth.) The Moon’s CoM follows the path of orbit without any rotational force being applied.
Watch this video of astronauts in the ISS demonstrating Newton’s first law. The balls and the astronaut are being pulled on by gravity but there is no force acting on the rotation of the balls. The slightest tap causes one ball to rotate in ways the other ball is not.
https://youtu.be/-luKN6mad5w?si=N-nMXM9GI2YeOOv9&t=57
Craig T,
You wrote –
“Watch this video of astronauts in the ISS . . . ”
And you will note that a ball in free fall can be slowed to the point where it is visibly not rotating about any axis.
At the same time, it is manifestly orbiting the Earth – around every 90 minutes – like the rest of the ISS and its contents – astronauts etc. Are they all rotating about an internal axis 16 times a day? Not according to me.
Maybe you need to appeal to an authority which supports you.
That video has NOTHING to do with the issue, Craig. I predicted you STILL wont understand.
Thanks for proving me right.
“Gravity can be considered to be acting on CoM. Thats why the string is such a good model for gravity.”
Non-sequitur.
Im most people’s experience on Earth, thrown balls (projectiles) are unconstrained from spinning freely by gravity. Very unlike that from a string attached to its surface.
Compare a basketball in a free-throw to a whacked tether ball.
Both are experiencing gravitational pull, but only one is prevented from spinning freely.
So for planetary motion, the ball-on-a-string is a poor model.
Nate gives us another example of what “brain-dead” looks like.
The ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbiting without spin”. It is NOT a model of “planetary motion”, basketballs, or anything else. The cult cannot even understand the simple ball-on-a-string. This was predictable.
They can’t learn. This is what “brain-dead” looks like.
Puffman forgot to mention the reason why he dismisses a video demonstrating how objects behave in space. Next, he will try to obfuscate this lack of justification by reissuing one of his silly riddles.
Moon Dragon cranks have little else.
Silly willy contributes his childishness to Nate’s brain-dead, making it even funnier.
Puffman is such a charmer that he is polluting this blog with his third or fourth or fifth or sixth or nth sock puppet.
And he still has to do either the baseball and basketball experiment or the Pole Dance Experiment.
“At the same time, it is manifestly orbiting the Earth around every 90 minutes like the rest of the ISS and its contents astronauts etc. Are they all rotating about an internal axis 16 times a day? Not according to me.”
It is according to NASA:
“Nominally, the ISS flies in an LVLH (Local Vertical Local Horizontal) attitude. That means that the vehicle pitches at four-degrees-per-minute in order to keep its belly pointed towards the Earth. So, nominally, the orientation of the ISS appears rather consistent with respect to the Earth.”
Wrong again, Craig.
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
Craig T,
I wrote “Are they all rotating about an internal axis 16 times a day? Not according to me.”
You claim NASA states otherwise, and quote –
“Nominally, the ISS flies in an LVLH (Local Vertical Local Horizontal) attitude. That means that the vehicle pitches at four-degrees-per-minute in order to keep its belly pointed towards the Earth. So, nominally, the orientation of the ISS appears rather consistent with respect to the Earth.”
Unfortunately, you neglected to point out which part of your quote specifies which internal axes individual astronauts are rotating about, which hullifies its relevance, don’t you think?
Try appealing to an authority which says what you want it to say.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
> I wrote
Thank you for repeating an irrelevant gotcha.
It can be ignored again.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Craig T, you wrote –
“Dr. Spenser also has repeatedly tried to explain the Greenhouse Effect” – without managing to describe the “greenhouse effect”, of course.
Maybe you could provide a copy of Dr Spencer’s description of the GHE? No?
You are just another fanatical GHE cultist, aren’t you, who cannot even describe the GHE.
Go on, tell me how somebody else has described the GHE somewhere else, at some other time, and then list all the reasons you cant actually put this brilliant description into words!
[what a peanut]
“The atmospheric gases most responsible for IR absor*tion and emission in the atmosphere (‘greenhouse gases’) act like a radiative blanket, cooling the middle and upper layers, but warming the lowest layers and the surface.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/
(I’ve had problems posting this because Dr. Spencer used one of his banned words in describing the greenhouse effect.)
Craig T,
Don’t be silly. Maybe you think that “The Greenhouse Effect Decreases the Rate of Energy Loss by the Earths Surface” provides some novel insight into the fact that the surface cools in the absence of sunlight, and that the Earth itself has cooled continuously for four and a half billion years, despite continuous sunlight during that period.
Slowed cooling is not heating. In Dr Spencer’s sentence, “the greenhouse effect” can be replaced with “the atmosphere”, without any sensible loss of meaning. Fine, if somebody wants to rename “the atmosphere” to “the greenhouse effect” they are free to do so.
I don’t agree with Dr Spencer’s statement “Either way, when you reduce the rate of net energy loss from an object, the object will have a higher temperature than if you didnt reduce the rate of energy loss.”
Reduce the rate of energy loss from a block of ice by using more insulation. Now convince me that the temperature of the ice has risen. In my experience, the more insulation, the longer the ice will stay cold. Maybe Dr Spencer meant to say something else, but I can only read what he wrote – not his thoughts.
Still no description of the GHE – especially if it’s supposed to result in heating. Keep trying if you wish – you’re just wasting your time.
Off you go, now.
Mike Flynn,
You prove minds again –
> Perhaps you think
Perhaps you think nobody knows you are a silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner is having a little fun.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
test
There is not any emergencies to rush. The fossil fuels burning (the intensive CO2 emissions) do not whatsoever affect Global climate temperature.
–
Global warming happens because of the more uniform global temperature. It is getting warmer for some millennials now. Because the warming is an orbitally forced process.
*******
When global warming, it is enhanced by the Higher Latitudes Temperatures Amplification.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ark…”water vapor is the most important radiative and dynamic component of Earths atmosphere”.
***
Th radiative component has nothing to do with it since WV makes up only a small fraction of the atmosphere, even in the Tropics. The significance of WV is adding to the mass of air in the Tropics hence increasing the heat capacity of the air. In other words, tropical air holds more heat than air located poleward.
According to Lindzen, that super-heated air is transported polewards as it rises and is transported by convection. Same in the oceans, where heat from tropical waters is transported poleward.
WV plays a role in heating and heat transport but it has nothing to do with the GHE and/or AGW theories. Radiation is a minor player in global warming as opposed to the alarmist theories where it plays a major role.
Gordon Robertson
Radiant energy loss is the most significant factor in the loss of energy by the Earth system. Convection and conduction only move energy around to different locations. They do nothing to remove energy that is gained from the Sun. Only radiant energy does this.
I am not sure why you have to peddle such poorly thought out ideas. It does not make you look like you know what you are talking about.
You deny the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (even though experimentally verified, I have linked you to experiments) and act like you took higher level physics. Why do you continue to pretend you have any type of science background. Your posts show you have none!
“Why do you continue to pretend you have any type of science background. Your posts show you have none!”
Norman, please stop trolling.
norman…this is way beyond your level of understanding. All you have in return is basic nonsense.
The rate at which heat is input via solar radiation is a lot higher than the rate that radiation can cool the surface. That’s you warming effect right there. If you can’t get rid of heat as fast as it is input, the planet warms.
I have never questioned the fact that the only way the planet can ultimately remove heat is by radiation. I have simply pointed out that radiation is inefficient compared to conduction/convection which also dissipates heat by natural means, within the atmosphere.
The S-B equation is an anachronism that needs to be abandoned. It was only ever good in a temperature range of 500C to 1500C. It gained popularity among theoretical physicists who were trying to work out gas theory using statistical means.
Norman,
You keep banging on about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law as though you are invoking a sacred prayer.
The problem is that some fanatical GHE cultists believe that they can calculate what the temperature of the Earth “should be” by some strange semantic gymnastics, which boil down to claiming that the temperature of an object (in this case the Earth) can be established by measuring the amount of sunlight which falls upon in it – using W/m2, or something equally pointless.
This is obviously complete nonsense, if you accept that the surface of the Earth was once molten. The cultist calculation completely ignores the fact that a body may have a temperature independent of the radiation falling upon it. For example, a block of ice, a bowl of water, and a crucible of molten iron may all be illuminated by the Sun.
Some dimwitted cultist will perform laborious calculations, and proudly announce that the temperatures of all the objects have been warmed by the sun to 255 K, say. The S-B law decrees it!
Are you one of those cultists, Norman, or will you accept the reality that the surface of the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and that this measured temperature varies between roughly 1200 C (fresh magma from the interior) to about -90 C on the Antarctic Plateau?
This, after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, of course!
You lose. Nature wins.
Gordon Robertson
You are just wrong, totally! I have linked you to lower temperature experiments that verify Stefan-Boltzmann. Repeating wrong misleading information is not a suggested tactic.
You falsely claim nonsense (you have never studied any physics, most posters know this about you, you get your physics from blogs and you don’t have enough science background to see how bad this physics really is).
YOU: “The S-B equation is an anachronism that needs to be abandoned. It was only ever good in a temperature range of 500C to 1500C.”
This is just a false claim you make over and over. Does it make you feel good about yourself to actively lie? That is what you are doing by passing false information. Bindidon calls you a liar and you prove him quite correct.
You look at NOAA and call them frauds but you don’t care you are a fraud and phony. Why doesn’t that even bother you a little?
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “I have simply pointed out that radiation is inefficient compared to conduction/convection which also dissipates heat by natural means, within the atmosphere.”
False and misleading again. Conduction and convection move energy around the atmosphere. They do not get rid of energy. Energy does not go away!! Your physics is horrible! You don’t even know the basics of any physics. If radiant energy did not remove energy from the Earth system it would just get hotter and hotter. Swenson would get his molten surface
You can’t understand how molecular dipoles can generate EM in the IR band and you pretend you know science.
You are a true science denier.
Gordon Robertson
I will give you evidence that you will deny. It is what you do.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alessandro-Di-Carlofelice/publication/347545372/figure/fig4/AS:1022686595645441@1620838893449/Comparison-of-Moons-surface-temperature-at-the-lunar-equator-between-Diviner-mission.png
If the link works it is a graph of moon surface temperature.
You can see that the temperature rises rapidly as the solar input reaches the surface but as it gets warmer the radiant output (in the IR band) matches the energy received by the Sun and the temperature reaches a peak when the input energy is equal to the output energy and it is much lower than 500 C. About 127 C. You can find out how much energy the Moon is emitting in IR when it reaches the peak temperature and calculate to validate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Not sure why you have to be such a science denier. You never consider evidence of anything just blab in ignorance and denial of evidence.
Norman,
Are you saying that the SB law calculates the maximum temperature of the Earth’s surface to be 90 C, but calculates the maximum temperature of the Moon to be 127 C?
You are not very clear, for someone claiming the scientific high ground, are you?
Is this supposed to be related in some way to a mythical “greenhouse effect”, or are you just trying to avoid admitting that you can’t even describe the GHE?
You can run, but you can’t hide!
No GHE. After four and a half billion years, the surface has cooled to its present temperature – despite four and a half billion years continuous sunlight, and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law!
Nature wins again – you lose.
> No GHE
Step 1 – Pure Denial
Norman,
Are you saying that the SB law calculates the maximum temperature of the Earths surface to be 90 C, but calculates the maximum temperature of the Moon to be 127 C?
You are not very clear, for someone claiming the scientific high ground, are you?
Is this supposed to be related in some way to a mythical “greenhouse effect”, or are you just trying to avoid admitting that you cant even describe the GHE?
You can run, but you can’t hide!
No GHE. After four and a half billion years, the surface has cooled to its present temperature despite four and a half billion years continuous sunlight, and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law!
Nature wins again you lose.
Just look at Willard’s description of the GHE – “not cooling, slower cooling”. The miracle of warming through cooling, according to the fanatical GHE cultist Willard!
No wonder he is reduced to the inept idiot trolling level.
Mike Flynn,
Are you saying that you cannot stand when people ignore your comments?
For a silly sock puppet who keeps repeating the same things daily for more than a decade on a website, that must hurt.
Keep repeating comments that are being ignored!
Cheers.
Norman,
Are you saying that the SB law calculates the maximum temperature of the Earths surface to be 90 C, but calculates the maximum temperature of the Moon to be 127 C?
You are not very clear, for someone claiming the scientific high ground, are you?
Is this supposed to be related in some way to a mythical greenhouse effect, or are you just trying to avoid admitting that you cant even describe the GHE?
You can run, but you cant hide!
No GHE. After four and a half billion years, the surface has cooled to its present temperature despite four and a half billion years continuous sunlight, and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law!
Nature wins again you lose.
Just look at Willards description of the GHE “not cooling, slower cooling”. The miracle of warming through cooling, according to the fanatical GHE cultist Willard!
No wonder he is reduced to the inept idiot trolling level.
Mike Flynn,
You hypothesize –
> the SB law calculates
No, silly sock puppet, it does not!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson,
Every citizen needs to have a crisp, qualitative understanding of these concepts.
1/
Radiation is the only mechanism by which infrared heat emitted by the Earth system can pass to outer space. Other forms of heat transfer, such as conduction or convection, are not applicable in the vacuum of space.
2/
Adding GHGs to the atmosphere effectively reduces the efficiency of infrared heat transfer to space.
Lagniappe:
Moist air is less dense than dry air due to the lower molecular weight of water vapor compared to dry air constituents like nitrogen and oxygen.
A,
“Adding GHGs to the atmosphere effectively reduces the efficiency of infrared heat transfer to space.”
What’s that got to do with anything? Are you going to claim that slower cooling results in increased temperatures? The surface demonstrably cools at night – it doesnt get hotter no matter how inefficient the heat loss is!
Just how thick are you pretending to be?
At least you are starting to appreciate the impossibility of describing a “greenhouse effect” in any way that reflects reality. Why not just admit that you cannot do it, and join Dr Spencer in efforts to establish the reasons why thermometers show temperature increases?
Some of his recent posts might help to start you off. You’re not scared that you might find reasons that don’t require the operation of a mythical GHE, are you? I believe I have mentioned a couple, even keeping in mind Feynman’s admonition “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
“The surface demonstrably cools at night it doesnt get hotter no matter how inefficient the heat loss is!”
Obviously you have never spent a summer night in Houston!
It’s true that at night in the desert water can freeze, but only on a dry, clear night when nothing stops the longwave radiation from leaving the Earth. The surface will always cool some when the sun goes down, but 100% humidity will considerably reduce the heat loss.
“Obviously you have never spent a summer night in Houston!”
Your mindreading abilities are as deficient as your knowledge of physics.
The nighttime temperature in Houston has never increased as a result of inefficiencies (whatever that means) of heat loss from the surface – when I’ve been there or at any other time.
You can refuse to accept that heat loss results in cooling – fast or slow.
Maybe you are one of the fanatical GHE cultists who believe that “not cooling, slower cooling” results in thermometers becoming hotter – like Willard!
Carry on not being able to describe the GHE. I won’t laugh at you – too much, anyway.
Mike Flynn,
Silly sock puppet –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
craig….”Dr. Spenser also has repeatedly tried to explain the Greenhouse Effect to people like you”.
***
I have a great respect for Roy and John Christy and the work they have done with sat data. However, I don’t think I have read two scientists who describe the GHE in the same manner. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist who taught at MIT has his own version and he called the traditional GHE definition a fantasy aimed at simplifying science for laymen.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both who work and teach in the field of thermodynamics, have falsified the popular GHE theory. They based their critique initially on an experiment conducted by R. W. Wood in 1909 in which Wood conclude that a greenhouse warms due to air being trapped in a greenhouse by the glass, and not by radiation being blocked by the glass. Wood was an expert with gases like CO2 and he questioned the theory that a trace gas could warm the atmosphere, hence his experiment.
There is no explanation for how trapped IR in a greenhouse can warm the air. The alternative theory is that GHGs in the atmosphere slow down the radiation of IR from the surface hence raising the temperature. The rate of surface radiation is controhled by the temperature difference between all gases in the atmosphere and the surface (Newton’s Law of Cooling). The rate of cooling has nothing to do with GHGs.
The greenhouse effect is making a more uniform global temperature.
Earth has a fairly uniform temperature, but Earth is in an Ice Age, which has less uniform temperature as compared to Earth not being in an Ice Age.
More CO2 might cause a more uniform temperature, but it’s known to be a weak greenhouse gas.
gb,
You wrote “The greenhouse effect is making a more uniform global temperature.”
You might just have well written “The atmosphere is making a more uniform global temperature.” Why bother using a mythical GHE which nobody can describe to explain the known effects of the atmosphere?
Without an atmosphere, extreme terrestrial temperatures would be the same as those on the Moon – say 120 C to -130 C, rather than our 90 C to -90 C.
No GHE required – just an appreciation of basic physics. The principles were well known to such as Prof John Tyndall, who pointed out that without an atmosphere, life as we know it on Earth would be insupportable, from consideration of temperature alone.
There is no “greenhouse effect”. Not even a tiny weeny one. Nobody can even describe this mythical “greenhouse effect”, anyway.
The fanatical GHE cultists much prefer to argue about the motion of the Moon (even Isaac Newton worked that one out), or indeed anything else than the GHE. Nothing wrong with people arguing, of course. Not a single physical fact is harmed in the process.
–gb,
You wrote The greenhouse effect is making a more uniform global temperature.
You might just have well written The atmosphere is making a more uniform global temperature. Why bother using a mythical GHE which nobody can describe to explain the known effects of the atmosphere?–
Richard Lindzen had said the oceans are about 1/2 of the greenhouse effect.
And I tend to agree with him.
“Richard Lindzen had said the oceans are about 1/2 of the greenhouse effect.”, but of course he is unable to describe this mythical “greenhouse effect”, isn’t he?
Even Raymond Pierrehumbert, GHE proponent, eventually wrote “Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation”, hidden away in a paper about radiative transfer theory, global warming, greenhouse gases and suchlike.
The oceans are heated from below, not above. Heat from the sun does not somehow hide itself in the depths – hot water floats, and during the night, gives up all the heat of the day. A properly constructed solar pond can reach 85 C during the day – but promptly cools at night, alas.
No GHE – if “climate scientists” want to cool atmospheric insulation wrapped around a cooling body (the Earth) a “greenhouse effect”, then they are either fo&$8204;ols or frauds. Might as well say that a Dewar flask uses the “greenhouse effect” to achieve its insulating properties!
All dreams and fantasy. Refusal to accept reality.
Cookers, “You can run, but you cant hide!”
+1.05 degrees!
ALLOW ME TO REPEAT
PLUS 1.05 DEGREES!
dmt,
Look down between your feet! -1200 degrees! Not molten!
ALLOW ME TO REPEAT
MINUS 1200 DEGREES!
I win.
Mike Flynn,
What do you gain exactly with your irrelevant talking point?
Attention?
Nobody really bites at it anymore.
Aw diddums.
Silly sock puppet!
From Raymond Pierrehumbert:
“The greenhouse effect shifts the planets surface temperature toward the photospheric temperature by reducing the rate at which the planet loses energy at a given surface temperature. The way that works is really no different from the way adding fiberglass insulation or low-emissivity windows to your home increases its temperature without requiring more energy input from the furnace…. Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.”
This common sense summary is given after 5 pages of technical discussion of radiative transfer.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Craig T,
Here’s the closest that Raymond Pierrehumbert comes to describing the GHE –
“The greenhouse effect of CO2 on Earth and Mars is visually manifest as the ditch carved out of the Planck spectrum . . . “. Ah, I see, it’s a “ditch”.
No doubt responsible for four and a half billion years of terrestrial cooling, and the surface cooling that occurs every night – four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight notwithstanding!
Maybe Raymond fell into the ditch and banged his head, resulting in some mental impairment.
You and Raymond don’t seem to realise that no matter how much insulation you use, it won’t raise the temperature of a fresh corpse in the Sun. Actually, in bright sunlight, the insulation prevents sunlight reaching the corpse, and its temperature drops! Hence the use of things like hats, roofs, sunshades and so on.
You live in a dream world, don’t you? Go on, tell me that your best description of the GHE is a “ditch”. Oh, you have a better one, do you?
Fire away.
“Go on, tell me that your best description of the GHE is a ‘ditch'”.
Pierrehumbert wrote:
“The greenhouse effect of CO2 on Earth and Mars is visually manifest as the ditch carved out of the Planck spectrum near 667 cm^−1. That dip represents energy that would have escaped to space were it not for the opacity of CO2.”
“For Earth and Mars, the width of the CO2 ditch corresponds approximately to the width of the spectral region over which the atmosphere is nearly opaque to IR. Increasing atmospheric CO2 increases the width of the ditch and hence increases the CO2 greenhouse effect. But the increase occurs in the wings of the absor*tion feature rather than at the center (see figure 2).”
He’s talking about the V shape in the spectrum around 667 cm^−1 where CO2 absorbs a large amount of IR light. Some claim that CO2 already absorbs all of the 667 cm^−1 light, so more CO2 won’t matter. His point is that the “ditch” widens with more CO2 so more total IR light is absorbed.
Of course that’s not a description of the GHE, it’s an example of it.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“Of course thats not a description of the GHE, its an example of it.”
Oh, I see – an example of something that has no description. Nifty trick.
Nobody has described the GHE – although many claim to be able to provide examples, explanations, or analogies of this thing that cannot be described. You can’t describe the GHE, can you? What, afraid of my sniggering? You don’t care what I think, do you?
Pierrehumbert is talking arrant nonsense, and simply refuses to accept that surface cools each night (losing all the heat of the day, plus a little bit of the Earth’s internal heat), and that the surface as a whole has cooled, being no longer molten. The notch would seem to be in Pierrehumbert’s understanding of reality.
So there you go – you refuse to accept reality, and you can’t describe the GHE!
Is that more gullibility than ignorance, or vice versa?
“The greenhouse effect of CO2 on Earth and Mars is visually manifest as the ditch carved out of the Planck spectrum near 667 cm^−1.”
“Oh, I see an example of something that has no description. Nifty trick.”
I trust you understand what it is for something to be visually manifested. Let’s look at the TOA outgoing longwave spectrum:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edwin-Kite/publication/309738530/figure/fig3/AS:425988237598722@1478574918106/Fig-S2-Outgoing-Longwave-Radiation-at-the-Top-Of-Atmosphere-TOA-assuming-a-273K.png
Notice that massive hole around 15μ (667 cm^−1)? That absence of outgoing energy was caused by CO2 absorbing the photons before they left the planet.
Now for Pierrehumbert’s explanation of what happened:
“Coupled vibrational and rotational states are the key players in IR absor*tion. An IR photon absorbed by a molecule knocks the molecule into a higher-energy quantum state. … [T]he energy of the photon will almost always be assimilated by collisions into the general energy pool of the matter and establish a new MaxwellBoltzmann distribution at a slightly higher temperature. That is how radiation heats matter in the local thermodynamic equilibrium limit.”
Craig T,
You appeal to the authority of Raymond Pierrehumbert, who endeavours to “explain” a GHE which he can’t describe (nobody can).
After I pointed out that it would be a nifty trick, you wrote “I trust you understand what it is for something to be visually manifested.”
Indeed I do. Are you implying that Pierre has “visually manifested” something which doesn’t exist? That would be an even niftier trick, if you could find someone even more ignorant and gullible than yourself to accept it. It turns out that visual manifestations of spirits, by mediums, were just trickery. No ghosts, no unicorns, no GHE.
You also wrote –
“Now for Pierrehumberts explanation of what happened:”
This is the explanation for a GHE which he can’t describe, or his statement that CO2 is just planetary insulation? Pierrehumbert believes that adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter (by magic, apparently).
No wonder you appeal to the authority of Pierrehumbert. Who next – Michael Mann, perhaps?
> Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both who work and teach in the field of thermodynamics, have falsified the popular GHE theor
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
“Step 3 Saying Stuff”
Here’s you saying stuff – the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”. Is step 3 where the magic occurs, making the planet hotter by cooling it slowly?
Willard, please stop trolling – you are just not very good at it.
Mike Flynn,
That was you saying something true:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Cheers.
“Step 3 Saying Stuff”
Heres you saying stuff the GHE is not cooling, slower cooling. Is step 3 where the magic occurs, making the planet hotter by cooling it slowly?
You quote Mike Flynn “Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me.” Obviously a smart fellow, like me and Richard Feynman.
No GHE. In the absence of heat, everything cools.
Willard, please stop trolling you are just not very good at it.
–You quote Mike Flynn Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me. Obviously a smart fellow, like me and Richard Feynman. —
That is an interesting question.
The answer I think is, global warming was a terms for the massive rapid warming from the coldest period of the glacial period.
When sea level was rapidly rising and stuff like ice sheets in Europe
and North America were disappearing.
The father of global warming thought it was due to rising global CO2 levels. But he was incorrect.
Oh, if google search father of global warming, the top links refer
to “Dr. James Hansen”, but further down is Svante Arrhenius.
I meant, Svante Arrhenius.
These days, Hansen seems to favor using more nuclear energy.
Long ago, he thought rising Methane levels were causing most of global warming. But then Al Gore, was pushing CO2, and he switched to the CO2 mantra.
Mike Flynn,
You deflect –
> You quote Mike Flynn
I am quoting *you*, Mike Flynn.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“Mike Flynn,
You deflect
> You quote Mike Flynn
I am quoting *you*, Mike Flynn.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.”
Do you have a point, or are you quite mad? That’s a metaphorical question, of course.
Carry on being an irrelevant idiot.
Mike Flynn,
You play dumb –
> Do you have a point
Yes, I do, silly sock puppet.
You are Mike Flynn.
Cheers.
“You are Mike Flynn.”
That’s your point?
And? That’s about as stupid as saying “Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist”.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“You are Mike Flynn.”
In you the obsession strong is.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
For once you make an effort, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
— GDEM: Mission of Gravity
by Paul Gilster | May 3, 2024 | 4 Comments
If space is infused with dark energy, as seems to be the case, we have an explanation for the continuing acceleration of the universes expansion. Or to speak more accurately, we have a value we can plug into the universe to make this acceleration happen. Exactly what causes that value remains up for grabs, and indeed frustrates current cosmology, for something close to 70 percent of the total mass-energy of the universe needs to be comprised of dark energy to make all this work. Add on the mystery of dark matter and we actually see only some 4 percent of the cosmos. —
…
“So we have a mission concept that can detect dark energy within our Solar System by measuring deviations found within the classic Newtonian gravitational field. And GDEM is hardly alone as scientists work to establish the nature of dark energy. This is an area that has fostered astronomical surveys as well as mission concepts, including the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the European Space Agencys Euclid, the Vera Rubin Observatory and the DESI collaboration (Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument). GDEM extends and complements these efforts as a direct probe of dark energy which could further our understanding after the completion of these surveys.”
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/
As volcanic ash reaches the stratosphere, the temperature in the lower stratosphere rises and drops near the surface. This is obvious because solids absorb solar radiation to an enormous extent. And how does volcanic ash act in the upper troposphere? Obviously the same, it warms the troposphere and cools the surface. Once again, the graphic shows the increased temperature of the troposphere above the equator and the decreased temperature near the surface.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
Moreover, the high temperature of the troposphere hinders cloud formation, which can result in high summer temperatures in the northern hemisphere and low winter temperatures in the southern hemisphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2024.png
May the 4th be with you!
Tim S,
Thanks, and with you!
“May the 4th . . . ” Good one!
Good catch :–)
There is now a rapid increase in sea ice extent in the south.
https://i.ibb.co/z5B0Qfw/S-iqr-timeseries.png
” There is now a rapid increase in sea ice extent in the south. ”
No.
The opposite is the case: in 2023 there was an incredible decline in sea ice extent in the south.
Now the situation is returning to normal:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
You can see the difference between the thick black line (2024), which moves currently along the 2019-2023 average, and the thin blue line (2023, which descended near to 3 Mkm^2 below the 30-year norm in July).
*
I know you love all the news related to cooling off; how about mapping sea ice extent in the Arctic instead?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
Listen up “skeptics.”
The cargo cult is like flat earthers, who want the govt to make the world flatter.
Earth is spherical, and Earth is in an Ice Age.
“who want the govt to make the world flatter.”
gbaikie, the first step is admitting, and then it’s one day at a time.
Sir Isaac Newton worked 7 days a week, 18 hours a day. He had given up his personal life, he probably never had any intention of getting married or raising a family. He wanted to devote all his life to the works of science and the pursuit of mathematics and so he did.
In the 1940s, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was committed to his teaching role at the University of Chicago, despite being based at the Yerkes Observatory. Each week, he traveled 80 miles to teach a special course attended by only two students.
The students were Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen-Ning Yang. They proved their mentor’s faith was well-placed when they both won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1957, years before Chandrasekhar received the same honor in 1983.
Remarkably, this course went down in history as the only one where every attendee received a Nobel Prize, underscoring the extraordinary impact of Chandrasekhar’s dedication and teaching.
Earth is currently in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
She’s just taking advantage of her wokeness. I’ve seen her try to describe the GHE nonsense. She has no clue.
But her wokeness makes her a cult favorite.
Puffman reacts as predicted:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/3/19/2086873/-Godwin-s-Law-corollary-because-wokeism
Another reason for him to do the Pole Dance Experiment!
“Another reason for him to do the Pole Dance Experiment!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
A,
You wrote –
“He wanted to devote all his life to the works of science and the pursuit of mathematics and so he did.”
Apart from his prodigious theological output, of course, for Newton wrote more about religion than science or mathematics. He kept most his output secret, because his Unitarian views were considered heretical in his day.
Or his 30 years as Master of the Mint, a Government appointment. According to documents of the time, Newton involved himself in the day-to-day running of the office to which he was appointed.
According to Newton’s own writings, his scientific and mathematical endeavours were of less personal importance than his studies of the occult and alchemy. Luckily for us, Newton predicted that the world would not end before 2060 at the earliest, based on his mathematical calculations. That’s comforting, isn’t it?
I’m not sure how he fitted it all in. No TV or internet, perhaps?
Our Moon doesnt rotate about its own axis.
Moon’s sidereal rotation period is equal to its around Earth orbital period:
27,32 Earth days.
Moons diurnal period is 29,53 Earth days.
Moon’s sidereal rotation period is shorter than Moon’s diurnal period, because Moon also orbits sun.
Moon’s sidereal rotation spin = 1 /27,32 rot/day
Moon’s diurnal rotation spin = 1 /29,53 rot/day
Consequently, Moon spins faster in reference to the stars than it spins in reference to the sun!
Moon’s spin in reference to the stars is faster, than its spin in reference to the sun, because Moon’s spin in reference to the stars is a sum of two movements:
1. The Moon orbiting Earth.
2. The Moon orbiting sun.
–
There is not any movement of Moon around its own axis.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
Go to
https://www.noa.gr
tell them your simple-minded nonsense, and come back with their answer (I hope you will be honest enough not to misrepresent it).
Thank you, Bindidon.
–
Our Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
Since Moons sidereal rotation period 27,32 days (in reference to the stars) is the same as its orbital around Earth period, Moon definitely does not rotate on its own axis.
If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moons sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas #2
I repeat: go to
https://www.noa.gr
tell them your simple-minded nonsense, and come back with their answer (I hope you will be honest enough not to misrepresent it).
Binny,
This is the same NOAA which wrote –
“Some radiation escapes to outer space, some is reabsorbed by other greenhouse gases, and some is directed back down to the Earth. Then, that radiation can get absorbed again, and then re-emitted, and then..”
– or some other NOAA which accepts the reality that radiation from a colder object is not absorbed by a warmer. For example, surrounding a teaspoon of water totally with a million tonnes of ice will not heat the water, no matter how much radiation the ice is reflecting back to the water.
Appealing to the authority of NOAA shows your level of intelligence and gullibility.
The best NOAA can do in relation to describing the GHE is to waffle about analogies, and then say “Note: This atmospheric process is referred to as the Greenhouse Effect, since both the atmosphere and a greenhouse act in a manner which retains energy as heat. However, this is an imperfect analogy.”
NOAA can’t even come up with a decent analogy, let alone a description! What a pack of fools?
Carry on.
Everything except your first and last lines are true.
Just as the Earth’s rotational axis is 23.5 degrees off the normal of its orbital plane, the Moon’s axis is about 7 degrees off normal of that orbital plane. While Cassini realized the Moon was rotating once per orbit, it wasn’t until Tobias Mayer recorded the position of crater Manilius over time that the angle and location of the Moon’s rotational axis was determined.
Now if the Moon’s orbit was circular and its rotational axis normal to its orbital plane I would “just say that the Moon is simultaneously spinning and not spinning.”
Because of the angle of the axis astronomers can see the lunar rotation in relation to the Earth. Because the Moon slows in its orbit at apogee and speeds up at perigee astronomers can tell the rotation isn’t in lock step with the Moon’s orbital position.
And I find it a bit insulting to Newton, Galileo, Cassini, Mayer and all of the other astronomers that anyone would trash their observations without so much as taking a measurement.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379722008282
There is nothing in the 3 volumes of Principia to suggest Newton claimed the Moon spins on a local axis. If he had thought that, knowing Newton, he would have expanded on it, explaining the rotation. There is nothing about rotation other than a statement I put down to the interpreter mistaking the meaning of Newton’s words.
The initial translation was made after Newton’s death and the translator could not consult with him. Apparently, the translator went on the conclusions of Cassini, not Newton.
If you read Newton on lunar motion, he states…
1)the Moon moves with a linear motion.
2)the linear motion is bent into a curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field.
3)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the major ellipse focus where Earth is located.
All three points, when taken together can have no other interpretation than curvilinear motion without local rotation. Also, the three points are a direct contradiction of the interpretation that the Moon rotate exactly once per orbit.
Newton used the Latin revolvir in Old Latin. Revolvir can be translated in several ways in the context of motion and the translator used it to indicate a local rotation. I am betting that Newton meant it as an orbit where the Moon was revolving round the external axis, the Earth.That jives with his three points above whereas a local rotation does not.
What Mayer was observing was a libration which he mistook for a physical rotation. Libration is a product of an elliptical orbit related to an observers view angle. Cassini was out to lunch.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“Now if the Moons orbit was circular and its rotational axis normal to its orbital plane I would just say that the Moon is simultaneously spinning and not spinning.”
Just like the fanatical GHE cultists who claim that cooling is heating, and that the GHE can simultaneously heat and cool the Earth.
If you say that the Moon is capable of simultaneously spinning and not spinning, then nobody can argue that you are wrong! A master stroke!
Have you any more pearls of wisdom to cast before the swine?
Speeding up the Moon and slowing it down would require a tremendous force acting in the tangential direction. At the distance of the Moon, the force acting on it from Earth is 1/3600th the force we experience at the surface. It is simply not enough to accelerate the Moon.
The explanation for the ***speed change*** is the Moon’s tremendous momentum. It is generally in equilibrium with Earth’s gravitational force but the gravity component varies slightly. As it weaken, the lunar momentum, which is constant, carries the Moon farther in the same time, hence the speed orbital speed changes.
Speed is not velocity, which is a vector quantity. Speed is distance/time and if more distance is covered in a unit time, the speed changes, but not the tangential velocity vector.
Craig, finding things on the web you don’t understand ain’t science.
What is your viable model of “orbiting without spin”?
If you don’t have a viable model, you’ve got NOTHING.
Kreg, your version of “orbit without spin” has passenger jets flying backwards and upside down:
https://www.canva.com/design/DAGEEJSpSi4/qZ0QwpIqz7FeMW1IBycWyw/view?utm_content=DAGEEJSpSi4&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=editor
Good luck with that.
Thanks, Craig:
Op. Cit.
Have you ever seen Moon Dragon cranks provide a numerical model for their silliness?
Me neither.
“Have you ever seen Moon Dragon cranks provide a numerical model for their silliness?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’ve missed you too, DREMT
“Kreg, your version of ‘orbit without spin’ has passenger jets flying backwards and upside down:”
Should you ever get a passenger jet into space orbiting the Earth it could travel at any attitude you chose.
“Have you any more pearls of wisdom to cast before the swine?”
I quoted your pearl, Swenson:
“Or just say that the Moon is simultaneously spinning and not spinning (true)”
If there was no difference except perspective between saying the Moon rotates or does not, I wouldn’t argue the point. (Although I would never accept someone claiming geosynchronous satellites don’t orbit the Earth.)
“Speeding up the Moon and slowing it down would require a tremendous force acting in the tangential direction. At the distance of the Moon, the force acting on it from Earth is 1/3600th the force we experience at the surface. It is simply not enough to accelerate the Moon.”
The Moon’s velocity at furthest from Earth (apogee): 0.970 km/s
The Moon’s velocity at closest to Earth (perigee): 1.082 km/s
Craig T,
You wrote –
“”Have you any more pearls of wisdom to cast before the swine?”
I quoted your pearl, Swenson:
Or just say that the Moon is simultaneously spinning and not spinning (true)
If there was no difference except perspective between saying the Moon rotates or does not, I wouldnt argue the point.”
I accept your quoting me as your authority, and am suitably humbled by your acknowledgement of my superior knowledge. However, I asked for any MORE pearls of wisdom, so just quoting my obviously brilliant words again, as flattering as it is, just demonstrates your level of intelligence.
Feel free to argue the point all you like – that’s about as brainless as fanatical GHE cultists arguing about a GHE which they can’t even describe!
Carry on arguing.
> I asked for any MORE pearls of wisdom
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Should you ever get a passenger jet into space orbiting the Earth it could travel at any attitude you chose.”
OK, Kreg, but back to my point…
…your version of “orbit without spin” has passenger jets flying backwards and upside down. Good luck with that.
Gordon, I can’t find the Principia quote so I won’t argue that Newton said the Moon rotates on its axis. But there is a more relevant point about Newton.
“Every object perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, except insofar as it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.”
This also applies to axial rotation. Without a rotational force acting on an object it continues to move according to its rotational inertia.
From the perspective of the Earth, the sun appears to revolve around the Earth, planets sometimes reverse direction in retrograde motion, and the Moon seems to not rotate. From Newton’s perspective of the fixed stars we see all planets orbit the sun and the Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit.
“your version of orbit without spin has passenger jets flying backwards and upside down. Good luck with that.”
These guys seem to think planets and moon’s have a front that needs to point forward in the orbit….quite silly!
Speaking of Newton:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Newtonsmountainv%3D7300.gif
Obviously this cannonball, fired without spin, would be moving as per the “Non-Spinners” version of “orbit without spin”.
Graham D. Warner cannot let go of his phone.
Appropriately, non-evidence is presented as evidence to support the non-spinners non-sense.
“OK, Kreg, but back to my point
your version of ‘orbit without spin’ has passenger jets flying backwards and upside down. Good luck with that.”
A passenger jet requires a forward thrust to create lift on the wings. Racehorses move forward because their hooves push against the ground.
By definition an object in orbit is moving without generating any thrust. Are you suggesting that airplanes flying normally are in orbit?
No, I’m suggesting that your version of “orbit without spin” is ridiculous. Do you have a better physical model of it than the passenger jet?
So you’re asking if I have a better model than your ridiculous graphic?
https://www.canva.com/design/DAGEEJSpSi4/qZ0QwpIqz7FeMW1IBycWyw/view?utm_content=DAGEEJSpSi4&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=editor
How about the ISS, which uses torque equilibrium attitude and control moment gyroscopes to turn 4 degrees per minute to keep the same side facing the Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aF7zwhlDDU&t=258s
No, Kreg, I’m not asking you for an example of something that’s actually orbiting. I’m asking you for a viable, physical model of "orbit without spin" which fits with your ludicrous idea of what that is.
You see, you could opt for a yo-yo with a frictionless axle. It would move the way you want it to, but it would objectively be spinning on that axle in order for it to do so. So, it wouldn’t be a viable physical model of "orbit without spin", now would it?
Or, you could go with an XY plotter programmed to move a model celestial object in a circle. That would move the way you want it to, and it would not be spinning, but it would have nothing to represent the force of gravity. Not viable, either.
I’d bet that anything you could come up with would fall into one of those two categories – objectively spinning, or not having anything to represent the force of gravity.
An example would be the ISS when it doesn’t use its attitude control system to keep the same side facing Earth. Gravity doesn’t apply a torque to rotate objects in space, it just attracts its center of mass toward the object it rotates.
Go watch the video I linked and read my post below where a NASA flight contro11er explains what is done to the ISS to keep the same side facing Earth.
Kreg, you’re not listening. I already said I’m not asking for an example of something that’s actually orbiting. I saw Clint R’s effortless annihilation of your post down-thread, already. That issue’s already been settled, and not in your favour. Try to focus on the here and now, the argument you’re currently losing against me. Without a viable, physical model of "orbit without spin", the "Spinners" are always going to lose!
“No, Im suggesting that your version of orbit without spin is ridiculous.”
Argument by faux incredulity.
Its ridiculous only in the form of YOUR airplanes-in-orbit strawman!
“Without a viable, physical model of “orbit without spin”
Nah, they have been shown several, and each time the rules for ‘viability’ are changed in order to reject it.
They don’t know what they want.
As always, Robertson resorts to his old misinterpretations, misrepresentations and lies – concerning by no means only the lunar spin!
Look at his dumb post (March 26, 2024 at 8:12 PM)
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1655065
*
He seemingly keeps all his notes in a binder without storing any contradiction to his endlessly repeated lies.
And here on this thread, again the same usual trash.
*
1. ” There is nothing in the 3 volumes of Principia to suggest Newton claimed the Moon spins on a local axis. ”
Wrong. See Book III, Prop XVII, Theor. XV.
It is exactly the place where Newton claims that:
https://books.google.de/books?id=x-_K1KGZvv4C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&source=bl&ots=LtVy4wJkn_&sig=ACfU3U3JXf_82r1cHHz7daxmm0agYrJFcQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjUgYmsh8zjAhVsxosKHY1NAXAQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
*
2. ” If he had thought that, knowing Newton, he would have expanded on it, explaining the rotation. ”
Says arrogant ignoramus Robertson who never would be able to expand on anything.
Newton explained his view about the lunar spin to Mercator in 1675 already, who published it one year later.
Newton very probably anticipated that a mathematical description of the lunar spin would become a far more complex project than his theory of universal gravitation.
Moreover, Newton
– was during decades in permanent competition with Flamsteed, Halley and Hadley about the tedious way to a solution for the longitudes at sea
– worked hard till 1702 on his famous TMM, the Theory of Moon’s motion, trying to solve the three body problem
– finally was busy till 1704 in a completely different context:
” Opticks: or, A Treatise of the Reflexions, Refractions, Inflexions and Colours of Light. ”
{ By the way, a treatise in which we can discover that Newton already suspected that light could possibly… be bent by masses. Using Newton’s formulas, start light bending by the Sun is 50% of Einstein’s. }
*
” There is nothing about rotation other than a statement I put down to the interpreter mistaking the meaning of Newton’s words. ”
Here too, ignoramus Robertson deliberately ignores having been corrected may times. A proof for dementia or dishonesty or both.
There was NOT ‘the interpreter’ (by the way: Andrew Motte, insulted many times by Robertson himself).
Newton’s Principia was translated directly from Latin by several authors: for example, Mrs. du Chatelet (1749, French), Wolfers (1882, German), Krilov (1951, Russian).
I posted many times links to these translations, which he all deliberately ignores, including Principia’s most recent English translation by Ian Bruce (2012).
*
” Newton used the Latin revolvir in Old Latin. ”
Neither Newton nor any other scientist wrote anything in Old Latin in the XVIIth / XVIIIth centuries: this Roman langugae was in use till around… 50 BC.
The Latin language used by Newton and others is named ‘New Latin’.
*
” Revolvir can be translated in several ways in the context of motion and the translator used it to indicate a local rotation. ”
So? Did then all translators use it ‘unisono’ to indicate the same local rotation?
*
” I am betting that Newton meant it as an orbit where the Moon was revolving round the external axis, the Earth. ”
Oh look! Dumbie Robertson ‘is betting’.
Look at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1657131
and you see the reply to Robertson’s endless trash.
*
And finally, Robertson’s dumbest part of his dumb post:
” What Mayer was observing was a libration which he mistook for a physical rotation. ”
Only an ass like Robertson would confound the optical wobbling named ‘libration’ with a physical rotation.
Meanwhile, the non-spinners have NO viable model for how the Moon can possibly be rotating around an external axis through the Earth, when its rotational axis is observed to be tilted at 6.7 degrees wrt to its orbital axis.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2024-0-95-deg-c/#comment-1664566
I assume Kreg’s workin’ on that viable physical model of "orbit without spin".
“I assume Kregs workin’ on that viable physical model of ‘orbit without spin’.”
After posting NASA explaining what it takes to make the ISS orbit while facing the same side towards Earth, I think that model might be a mike drop.
“There is nothing in the 3 volumes of Principia to suggest Newton claimed the Moon spins on a local axis. If he had thought that, knowing Newton, he would have expanded on it, explaining the rotation.”
Thanks to Bindidon for pointing me to Newton expanding on the Moon’s axial rotation.
BOOK III PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
“The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I. Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. These things appear by the Phenomena. … But 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; but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus; and this is the libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the moon’s latitude, and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.”
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Newton%27s_Principia_(1846).djvu/410
Kreg, you still haven’t actually posted a viable physical model of “orbit without spin”. I’m not sure you even know what “model” means.
Newton included axial rotation in his first law of motion.
“Projectiles persevere in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by the resistance of the air, or impelled downwards by the force of gravity. A top, whose parts by their cohesion are perpetually drawn aside from rectilinear motions, does not cease its rotation, otherwise than as it is retarded by the air. The greater bodies of the planets and comets, meeting with less resistance in more free spaces, preserve their motions both progressive and circular for a much longer time.”
He understood that the pull of gravity in no way changes the axial rotation (or lack of it) of an object.
Still nothing.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Again: still nothing.
Gordon,
Can you use the equations for momentum?
“the lunar momentum, which is constant, carries the Moon farther in the same time, hence the speed orbital speed changes.”
If the Moon’s orbital speed changes, the Moon’s lunar momentum must change.
According to Momentum = mass times velocity?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner PSTers and seeks to irritate.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SpaceX’s Massive Updates for Flight 4 are Astounding!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Hr-4O4N5g
And talks about the Saxavord Spaceport and also China lunar mission to return samples from South PoleAitken basin.
binny…”Vournas #2
I repeat: go to
https://www.noa.gr
tell them your simple-minded nonsense, and come back with their answer (I hope you will be honest enough not to misrepresent it)”.
***
Christos is polite to everyone on this site even you. Why is it, in your blatant ignorance, you cannot address him politely?
ark…”Sir Isaac Newton worked 7 days a week, 18 hours a day. He had given up his personal life, he probably never had any intention of getting married or raising a family. He wanted to devote all his life to the works of science and the pursuit of mathematics and so he did”.
***
Your brief unauthorized bio of Newton omitted a few facts. For example, Newton was devoutly religious and credited God with creating the universe. Although I am not religious, I see his point. There is no other explanation for how the universe came to be and it it has always been as it is. Why? There is no other scientific explanation for life on Earth and evolution theory is a sorry attempt by the human mind to explain it.
Newton wrote volumes on the Bible. How he found the time and dedication is beyond me, someone who looks forward to Saturday night when I can view 2 straight hours of the 3 Stooges.
Newton had a remarkable mind and I regard anyone as a blithering ijit who claims his brilliant work has been replaced by a physics wannabee in Einstein. Any ijit who can claim, with a straight face, that Newton’s gravitational force is an illusion, and that it really exists as a fabric of space and time is ready for the looney bin.
Besides his religious devotion, it was not easy in the day of Newton to meet an eligible woman. There was also the plague, which forced him out of London and Cambridge for year. Rather than brood over sex, as our LGBTQ crowd does today, he got on with it, using his mind in lieu of chasing skirts.
I’m sure Newton didn’t chase skirts. 😉
“Im sure Newton didnt chase skirts.”
And your opinion has value because you have proof that Newton was homosexual, perhaps?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I’m sure you have none. Feel free to prove me wrong!
[laughing at the trolling efforts of diversionary GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn,
We actually do –
https://getmaude.com/blogs/themaudern/isaac-newton-on-sex
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“We actually do.”
Do what? Have proof that Newton was a homosexual?
I know you would like to think that you share at least something with Newton, but that’s not proof!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
We have evidence that your inference was silly, silly sock puppet.
Isaac is most probly asexual.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
“Mike Flynn,
We have evidence that your inference was silly, silly sock puppet.
Isaac is most probly asexual.
Cheers.”
What inference was that, Wee Willy? What was I supposed to have inferred, and why do you believe you have mindreading abilities?
You can’t back up your claims of evidence about an inference which doesn’t exist, can you?
By the way, if by Isaac, you were referring to Isaac Newton, you might make yourself clearer by not using the present tense to refer to him. He has been dead for some time. When you wrote “probly” did you mean “probably”, or were you just attempting to be confusing?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You inexorable –
> What inference was that
That not chasing the opposite sex implies homosexuality, silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You wrote that somebody implied “That not chasing the opposite sex implies homosexuality . . .”
Who was that, and what is its relevance to the fact that you cannot describe the GHE any better than “not cooling, slower cooling”?
If that’s the best you can do, I can see why you prefer to concentrate on homosexuality. Are you perhaps out and proud, or still lurking in a closet?
I’m proudly heterosexual myself, but you are free to be what you want. Possibly not such a bad thing to remove your genes from the general pool, do you think?
What are you (besides an ignorant and fanatical GHE cultist, of course)?
Mike Flynn,
No, I did not write that somebody implied anything.
I wrote that you did. Here:
> And your opinion has value because you have proof that Newton was homosexual, perhaps?
This was in response to “I’m sure Newton didn’t chase skirts.”
Even for a silly sock puppet you’re not very bright, are you?
Cheers.
” … who looks forward to Saturday night when I can view 2 straight hours of the 3 Stooges.”
That explains a lot.
All week typing out nonsense with only Curly, Moe and Larry for company on a Saturday night. Sad.
Newton’s Principia for the Common Reader by Subrahmanijan Chandrasekhar. Oxford University Press Inc. 1995.
Spoiler alert: not written in lame man’s language.
And?
And what, Mike Flynn?
[Newton] also had a lengthy feud with a dildo salesman.
But Willard:
What if we attached one of William Chaloner’s “bawdy novelty pocket watches” to a tree by rope, and it traveled around the tree keeping its longer, more bawdy hand pointed at the tree? What would Newton say about that?
Little Willy, Kreg, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner decided it was time to PSTer.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
craig t…”[Pierrehumbert]The greenhouse effect shifts the planets surface temperature toward the photospheric temperature by reducing the rate at which the planet loses energy at a given surface temperature. The way that works is really no different from the way adding fiberglass insulation or low-emissivity windows to your home increases its temperature without requiring more energy input from the furnace. Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.”
***
We know how fibreglass acts to reduce heat loss, it actually interacts with air molecules to slow their passage to the outside walls where they would cool quickly. How do air molecules in the atmosphere do the same?
The GHE/AGW theory is even more mysterious since alarmists claim it is surface radiation that mainly cools the surface. They posit further that slowing down radiation somehow changes the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.
Quantum theory tells us that heat is lost at the time radiation is created. Therefore, after radiation leaves the surface there is no way to affect the rate of heat loss, since the heat is already lost at a different rate.
We could regard the atmosphere as a buffer zone between the surface and space but as an insulator, any insulation effect would apply only to air molecules, which implies conduction/convection. The atmosphere can have little or no effect on radiation just as fibreglass has no effect on it.
The atmosphere, due to its negative pressure gradient caused by gravity, acts as a natural heat dissipator for conduction/convection. As heated air molecules at the surface rise naturally, they go through an ever-decreasing negative pressure gradient, and as a result, they lose heat as they rise.
Norman doesn’t understand any of this and he will no doubt resort to insults and ad homs due to his frustration.
“Quantum theory tells us that heat is lost at the time radiation is created.”
And that radiation is the only way energy can leave the Earth. But if a molecule absorbs that photon then bumps into another molecule that energy returns to being heat.
“The atmosphere can have little or no effect on radiation just as fibreglass has no effect on it.”
Along with fiberglass the insulation on my house has a thin layer of aluminum to keep radiative energy in during the winter and out during the summer. The classic glass thermos has a vacuum layer with a silver coat to reduce radiative heat loss. Some gasses (water vapor, methane, CO2) are opaque to a range of IR radiation, keeping that energy from leaving the Earth.
I hope Norman doesn’t resort to insults and ad homs (I hope you, Clint and Swenson won’t either). But the frustration comes from posters that ignore that the only way energy reaches or leaves the Earth is in radiative form.
Craig T,
Molecules don’t bump into each other. That’s GHE cultist thinking.
You wrote –
“Some gasses (water vapor, methane, CO2) are opaque to a range of IR radiation, keeping that energy from leaving the Earth.”
Well no, nothing at all prevents radiation from leaving the Earth. That’s why the Earth has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, and continues to do so. The surface even cools each night!
All completely irrelevant, isn’t it? You are gullible and ignorant enough to believe in a GHE which cannot be described. Feel free to demonstrate that my opinion is wrong, providing a few facts in support.
Carry on.
“Molecules dont bump into each other.”
Then can you explain Brownian motion?
“Well no, nothing at all prevents radiation from leaving the Earth.”
So can you explain what happens to the IR around 15μ? Why are they missing from the outgoing radiation?
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edwin-Kite/publication/309738530/figure/fig3/AS:425988237598722@1478574918106/Fig-S2-Outgoing-Longwave-Radiation-at-the-Top-Of-Atmosphere-TOA-assuming-a-273K.png
Craig T,
“Then can you explain Brownian motion?”
Of course I can. Why do you ask? Don’t you know?
Craig T,
You ask –
“So can you explain what happens to the IR around 15μ?”
Of course I can. Why do you ask? Don’t you know?
Brownian motion occurs when molecules bump into a small mass. The IR around 15μ was absorbed before reaching the top of the atmosphere.
I should have asked you to explain Brownian motion if molecules never bump into each other and the absence of 15μ radiation leaving the Earth while claiming nothing prevents radiation from leaving the Earth.
Craig T,
I accept you apologising for your sloppiness and lack of forethought.
You now write –
“I should have asked you to explain Brownian motion if molecules never bump into each other and the absence of 15μ radiation leaving the Earth while claiming nothing prevents radiation from leaving the Earth.”
Why do you ask? Don’t you know?
Nothing prevents radiation from leaving anything. All matter above absolute zero emits IR radiation. In my universe, anyway. iIf you don’t like it, start your own cultist GHE universe.
Not only can you not describe the GHE, but your admitted sloppiness and lack of forethought seems exceeded by your ignorance of reality.
The Earth has cooled. The surface is no longer molten. If Pierrehumbert has told you it cannot be, you are free to believe him.
Swenson, I realize that in your universe molecules don’t collide and spectrograms of outgoing radiation are meaningless. Now go to bed – you’re stumbling over your automatic insults.
Mike Flynn just woke up, Craig.
Craig T,
“Swenson, I realize that in your universe molecules dont collide and spectrograms of outgoing radiation are meaningless.”
Obviously, you can’t actually quote me saying that spectrograms of outgoing radiation are meaningless, so you just made that up, didn’t you? Reality is not something that sits well with you, is it?
You are starting to accept reality, though. I accept that the visualisation of molecules colliding with each other is useful in many areas, even if physically untrue at a quantum level. Chemistry texts often refer to electrons as being little bodies orbiting an atomic nucleus, which is nonsense, but widely believed, even if physically incorrect.
Not to worry, nobody has described the GHE in anyway that agrees with reality in your universe either! Unless the Earth in your universe has not cooled, of course.
Playing the insult card is typical for fanatical GHE cultists. If you choose to feel insulted, feel away. If you have time left over, you can also choose to feel offended, upset, angry, annoyed or the like. Don’t blame me for your inability to control your emotions.
It won’t help you to describe the mythical GHE, will it?
Carry on.
“Mike Flynn just woke up, Craig.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
And now Mike Flynn is asleep, Craig.
Our silliest sock puppet lives down under.
Flynn believes that if A states that B issued insults in his direction, that A is claiming he felt insulted.
Typical sly language switcharoo by him.
Little Willy, Antonin, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner should have waited a little longer to PSTer.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A century ago, we knew essentially none of what are now considered the basic facts of cosmology. This situation changed rapidly, first on the theoretical front in the 1910s, then on the observational front in the 1920s.
Cosmology studies the universe on the largest scales, and over large scales the most important force of nature is gravity. Our modern understanding of gravity is the theory of general relativity, proposed by Einstein in 1915. The key insight in this theory is the idea that space and time can be curved and have a dynamical life of their own, changing in response to matter and energy. As early as 1917, Einstein applied his new theory to cosmology, taking as an assumption something we still believe is true: that on the largest scales, matter in the universe (or at least our observable part of it) is uniform through space. He also assumed, consistent with the apparent implication of observations at the time, that the universe was static. To his surprise, Einstein found that general relativity implied that any uniform universe would necessarily be non-static either expanding or contracting. In response he suggested modifying his theory by adding a new parameter called the cosmological constant, which acted to push against the tendency of matter to contract together. With that modification, Einstein was able to find a static (but unstable) solution if the cosmological constant were chosen precisely to balance against the attraction of matter on large scales.
This discussion became somewhat academic when Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason announced in 1929 that the universe is expanding: distant galaxies are receding from us at speeds that are proportional to their distance. It had only been in 1924 that Hubble had established that the spiral nebulae, which many thought were clouds within our own galaxy, were separate galaxies in their own right, demonstrating the true vastness of the universe. The collection of stars we live in, the Milky Way galaxy, contains something over 100 billion stars, and there are over 100 billion such galaxies within the observable universe.
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/
“taking as an assumption something we still believe is true:”
Ah, I see. Just speculation and guesswork, after all.
That would suit you, wouldn’t it? Wishy-washy cosmology for Wishy-washy Willard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You proclaim –
> Ah, I see.
No, silly sock puppet.
You don’t.
Cheers.
“taking as an assumption something we still believe is true:”
Ah, I see. Just speculation and guesswork, after all.
That would suit you, wouldnt it? Wishy-washy cosmology for Wishy-washy Willard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You profess –
> Just speculation and guesswork
Science is mostly conjectures and refutations.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“taking as an assumption something we still believe is true:”
Ah, I see. Just speculation and guesswork, after all.
That would suit you, wouldn’t it? Wishy-washy cosmology for Wishy-washy Willard.
Your not-so-brilliant response “Science is mostly conjectures and refutations”, no doubt appealing to your own dubious authority. My conjecture is that you suffer from some form of mental affliction, and available evidence seems to bear my conjecture out.
Here’s an example, based on one of your bizarre comments –
“Mike Flynn,
You proclaim
> Ah, I see.
No, silly sock puppet.
You don’t.
Cheers”
Others might see this sort of comment as a less-than-glowing endorsement of your mental acuity.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You probe –
> That would suit you
That science deals with theories, that Mr. Asshat is wrong to claim that God is the only game in town, or that you are a silly sock puppet?
If you could clarify what you are braying about, that would be great.
Cheers.
You seem to have temporarily lost your ability to retain information, so I will repeat my earlier response –
“”taking as an assumption something we still believe is true:”
Ah, I see. Just speculation and guesswork, after all.
That would suit you, wouldnt it? Wishy-washy cosmology for Wishy-washy Willard.
Willard, please stop trolling.”
Which particular part of my response confuses you?
You aren’t annoyed because you still cannot describe the GHE, are you? I thought that by now, any rational person would have realised that such a task was impossible. That might explain why you are still trying to pretend the GHE exists – it’s just very magical and mysterious, so describing it is really, really, hard!
Carry on Wee Willy – try diverting to something else. The Moon? The theory of relativity? Early Jesuit philosophers on the nature of space?
I guess anything is better than having me throw your last description of the GHE (“not cooling, slower cooling”), in your face repeatedly.
Luckily, you don’t need my help to look like a an ignorant and fanatical GHE cultist – you are doing a fine job, all by yourself!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You mention information.
What are you braying about?
You’re just a silly sock puppet.
You don’t deal in information.
Cheers.
You seem to have temporarily lost your ability to retain information, so I will repeat my earlier response
“”taking as an assumption something we still believe is true:”
Ah, I see. Just speculation and guesswork, after all.
That would suit you, wouldnt it? Wishy-washy cosmology for Wishy-washy Willard.
Willard, please stop trolling.”
Which particular part of my response confuses you?
You arent annoyed because you still cannot describe the GHE, are you? I thought that by now, any rational person would have realised that such a task was impossible. That might explain why you are still trying to pretend the GHE exists its just very magical and mysterious, so describing it is really, really, hard!
Carry on Wee Willy try diverting to something else. The Moon? The theory of relativity? Early Jesuit philosophers on the nature of space?
I guess anything is better than having me throw your last description of the GHE (“not cooling, slower cooling”), in your face repeatedly.
Luckily, you dont need my help to look like a an ignorant and fanatical GHE cultist you are doing a fine job, all by yourself!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You mention information again.
Why are you then copy-pasting a comment that is void of it?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner tries to PSTer me in my own thread.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner has twisted fantasies
Little Stalker, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner still tries to PSTer me in my own thread!
Shhhh.
Interesting that there is no new record in the last three columns. The Arctic peaked in August, and is down a lot since then. Are we entering, or have we already entered, a new cooling period hidden from view by the latest El Nino??? If so, presumably we will see some big UAH LT temperature falls soon?
There will be big falls soon due to a likely La Nina. Or at the very least the current neutral conditions taking over.
And you have just set yourself up to falsely call them “a new cooling period”.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Anything can happen, mate. But predictions are a wasted effort, regardless of what your beliefs are related to climate change. Cooling is just as wishful as warming. It’s deterministic chaos after all; all you can do is sit and enjoy the ride.
Mike Jonas
” The Arctic peaked in August, and is down a lot since then. ”
Maybe you might zoom a bit out the last months:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1123hOzasZRvkrKr8toQppimIaElIkMKW/view
Mike Jonas
Same as above for UAH’s ConUS and Australia series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X6iQoMpS3Cc8eESK3ygwK8XlpRk_ojaX/view
We left the 2020 El Nino, passed the strongest la Nina since decades and entered El Nino’s 2023 edition.
As we are in a weakening phase of El Nino, we probably (!!!) might expect some cooling in ConUS and Australia in a few months.
Time will tell, as Salvatore Del Prete loved to say :–)
*
Amazing is the similarity of the running means for the two land regions, despite located on both sides of the Equator and on different latitude bands.
It becomes even more apparent when using cascaded running means to flatten the wriggles:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jw_LImT8qk7E_gboEkLVX6auVTZI5MgP/view
My new climate model
https://youtu.be/kGOKS6PkbE4?t=73
We can already see the first planetary waves in the stratospheric polar vortex in the south and an increase in pressure over the polar circle.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_AMJ_SH_2024.png
Earth Wikipedia:
Synodic rotation period 1.0 d
(24h 00 m 00s)
Sidereal rotation period 0.99726968 d[16]
(23h 56 m 4.100s)
–
Moon Wikipedia:
Synodic rotation period 29.530589 d
(29 d 12 h 44 min 2.9 s; synodic; solar day) (spin-orbit locked)
Sidereal rotation period 27.321661 d (spin-orbit locked)
–
–
If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moons sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Facts and measurements only confuse fanatical GHE cultists.
Thank you, Swenson, for your response.
“Facts and measurements only confuse fanatical GHE cultists.”
We should inform people every possible way, because people do not know physics, and therefore people only listen to what scientists say.
I also believed what scientists were saying about Moon’s rotating, and about CO2 greenhouse warming danger. It was not my specialty, so I had to relay on scientists who were specialists on the matter.
And what I heard worried me as everyone else.
I got even more worried one day, when thinking of our fate in CO2 polluted atmosphere.
Then, something changed in mind – wait a minute, I said, CO2 ~ 400 ppm in Earth’s thin atmosphere (1 bar at sea level) is a trace gas in a thin atmosphere, it is almost nothing out there.
Also I started questioning, how do the plants manage with so little CO2 around? How it comes plants still survive ?
What I came to is that plants absorb CO2 not directly from atmosphere, but the CO2 first is deluted in water.
And I started my own research. It took me a lot of time reading everything I could find in Internet.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“What I came to is that plants absorb CO2 not directly from atmosphere, but the CO2 first is deluted in water.”
Plants have tiny pores in their leaves called stomata. This is how CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere.
https://www.thoughtco.com/plant-stomata-function-4126012
Thank you, Graig, for your response.
“Plants have tiny pores in their leaves called stomata. This is how CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere.”
Graig, I always thought it was their tiny pores in their leaves called stomata.
Now, please, imagine how leaves may take in CO2 from stomata?
CO2 is a gas dissolved in air in proportion 1 molecule CO2 in 2500 molecules of air.
To mention, CO2 is the main food for plants, not some minerals microelements, which are also always needed.
So, in the case of a 100% efficiency, a leave to gain 1 gr. should had processed 2.5 kgr of air.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“And I started my own research. It took me a lot of time reading everything I could find in Internet.“
Arkady, please stop trolling.
“Moons sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
Last time I checked, 27.32 was less than 29.53.
Thank you, Antonin, for your response.
“Last time I checked, 27.32 was less than 29.53.”
What you say is that Moon’s sidereal rotation period is shorter than Moon’s synodic period, because Moon also orbits sun.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You mean that the moon orbits the earth, which in turn orbits the sun.
So in fact, there was nothing in your numbers which proves your point.
And the synodic period is NOT the “orbital around Earth period” (to repeat your clumsy language).
AQ,
You wouldn’t lashing out because you can’t describe the GHE, are you?
Clumsy language? His English expression seems reasonable, for someone whose first language is not English.
Here’s something you wrote –
“Only those of us in the middle who follow the real science of the IPCC understand that short term variation is not climate, whichever way it heads, and that only the centre of the distribution represents climate (applicable also to its effects).”
Not only clumsy, but mostly incomprehensible, not to say displaying complete ignorance on your part.. Even excusing your poor expression, you say that something (a centre, presumably) applies to the “effects” of climate! You poor witless fanatical GHE cultist – climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, and has no “effect” on anything at all (apart from the fevered fantasies of the mentally afflicted GHE cultists).
The “real science of the IPCC”? What is that? Do you consider the statement by the IPCC that it is not possible to predict future climate states, scientific or not?
You are definitely a strange one, aren’t you? Can’t describe the GHE, won’t accept that the Earth has cooled, don’t believe that it is not possible to predict future climate states . . . .
Ah well, it takes all types, I suppose. Even types like you.
Keep at it.
Dang – let he who is without sin . . .
I meant to write “be” after “wouldn’t”, of course.
I grovel in abject mortification – a thousand pardons!
My comment was perfectly understandable in context to anyone with at least a moderate understanding of the English language.
Did you notice how you had to change my words to feign such a clumsiness. No … of course you didn’t … you have trained your muscle memory to cheat by bypassing your brain.
And did you notice that you accepted his initial comment without question without actually checking which number was less? That is full-blown denial at its worst.
“That is full-blown denial at its worst.”
Please stop trolling.
Antonin,
“And the synodic period is NOT the “orbital around Earth period (to repeat your clumsy language).”
–
Please compare those two numbers:
Moon’s Sidereal rotation period 27.321661 d (spin-orbit locked)
And
Moon’s orbital around Earth period 27.321661 d (spin-orbit locked)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So you’ve just shown PRECISELY what I said, ie.:
“the SYNODIC period is NOT the ‘orbital around Earth period'”
(Unless you are now claiming that the sidereal period is equal to the synodic period.)
Seriously, there are real issues going on with your comprehension.
This is why, months ago, I started using only “orbit” and “spin”. All of the other terms, “revolution”, “rotation”, “local rotation”, and “rotation about an internal axis”, just confuse the issue. It’s important to keep things simple, when trying to teach children.
Earth both orbits and spins. Moon only orbits.
If you’re trying to responsibly teach, keep it simple.
Thank you, Antonin, for your response.
“So youve just shown PRECISELY what I said, ie.:
“the SYNODIC period is NOT the ‘orbital around Earth period'”
(Unless you are now claiming that the sidereal period is equal to the synodic period.)
Seriously, there are real issues going on with your comprehension.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas,
The Moon’s synodic period is not the same as its orbital period around the Earth because of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun.
While the Moon orbits the Earth, the Earth is also orbiting the Sun. This means that by the time the Moon completes one orbit around the Earth, the Earth has moved a certain distance along its own orbit around the Sun. As a result, the Moon needs to travel an additional distance in order to catch up to the Earth’s position in its orbit around the sun.
Thank you, Arkady.
“As a result, the Moon needs to travel an additional distance in order to catch up to the Earths position in its orbit around the sun.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No need to thank me.
I know it can be difficult to grasp complex subjects in a non-native language.
Arkady,
“No need to thank me.
I know it can be difficult to grasp complex subjects in a non-native language.”
–
Please, tell what is your native language, so I use it for your benefit.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas,
I much prefer English.
Arkady,
“I much prefer English.”
Ok, your English expression seems reasonable, for someone whose first language is not English.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Ok, your English expression seems reasonable, for someone whose first language is not English.”
I would hope so!
I moved to the U.S. at age 16 to attend college, and it’s been my home for fifty years now.
Ok, shall we discuss the Rotational Warming?
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV
What is the purpose of merely quoting what I said and saying nothing else?
AQ,
You wrote –
“What is the purpose of merely quoting what I said and saying nothing else?”
Why do you want to know?
AQ, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
> Why do you want to know?
Why do you want to know why AQ wants to know what he wants to know?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“Why do you want to know why AQ wants to know what he wants to know?”
This from an idiot who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote that comment –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Long live and prosper, and try not to be too harsh on yourself, silly sock puppet!
Christos Vournas,
“Ok, shall we discuss the Rotational Warming?”
As long as it relates to climate science, such as what is causing the temperature timeseries at the top of this page.
Little Willy, Arkady, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner PSTers again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Yes, the ISS flies an LVLH attitude. LVLH stands for local vertical, local horizontal. That means we describe the attitude of the ISS with respect to a reference frame that is defined as follows:
X axis – aligned with the velocity vector
Y axis – aligned with the orbital momentum vector
Z axis – aligned with the orbital radius vector
If the ISS is flying LVLH (0,0,0) it’s body axis is coincident with the LVLH frame. Typically, we fly a small bias from the LVLH.
In order to maintain an LVLH attitude, the ISS maintains a 4 degrees per minute pitch (the nose moves downwards at 4 degrees per minute). 4 degrees per minute is the rate needed to rotate a full 360 degrees in 90 minutes (the average orbital period).
It’s important for the ISS to do this because it was designed to fly in this attitude. We need the communications and GPS antennae to point upwards, we need the meteor shielding to be in the front, and we need the Lab window to be facing down.
It isn’t hard to maintain that rotation because, as Sir Isaac tells us, an object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon.”
NASA’s Robert Frost answering the question “Does the ISS rotate during orbit to keep the same attitude with respect to the ground below?”
I’ve seen this before, Craig. It’s a perfect example of the confusion that comes out of NASA. Thanks for the reminder.
The ISS is in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), so it still experiences drag even from the thin atmosphere. Add to that its irregular structure and you get “torque”. Consequently, it is necessary to keep adjusting its attitude and altitude.
And the character “Robert Frost” can’t get it right. He gets “orbiting” — “Imagine it this way — your friend is standing in front of you. If you walk in a circle around your friend, you are revolving.”
CORRECT! Also called “orbiting”.
“If you do not change your location, but turn around to not face your friend, you are rotating.”
CORRECT! Also called “spinning”.
But poor Robert gets confused when he puts the two motions together — “If you walk in a circle around your friend and constantly turn so that you are continually facing him, you are both revolving and rotating.”
INCORRECT! Someone needs to buy a ball and string for Robert….
“And the character Robert Frost cant get it right.”
Here’s his elevator bio:
“I work in NASA’s Flight Operations Directorate. I’ve trained astronauts on the guidance, navigation & control of the International Space Station and am currently a flight control1er for visiting vehicles.”
When he says NASA must adjust the ISS attitude “4 degrees per minute is the rate needed to rotate a full 360 degrees in 90 minutes (the average orbital period)” I think he’s clear on what he’s talking about.
ISS day is about 90 min and Earth’s is about 24 hour.
ISS would rotate for it’s solar panels.
Unlike earth surface which gets solar power for at most for 25% of time, at higher elevation ISS gets solar polar 60% of the time.
Or 60% of a 90 min ISS day.
So at it’s night, I suppose it keeps rotating to be in position to catch it’s dawn.
24 / 1 1/2 is 16. So ISS has 16 dawns for every Earth dawn.
The easiest way to keep solar panels aimed at the sun would be to not rotate. Because the ISS has to rotate to keep the same side oriented to the Earth (see above) it turns 360 degrees each orbit.
The solar panels are designed to rotate separate from the ISS, at least on one axis, so the rotation of the station is not done to angle the panels.
Solar panels were created for space {they would not exist without space exploration]. And solar panels on ISS are far more viable than solar panels on Earth’s surface.
The battery needs electrical power for 40% of 90 mins. Unlike earth which needs 16 hours per day.
By not understanding the motions, Craig and gb get everything overly confused, as usual.
The ISS wants to keep one side facing Earth, like Moon. ISS would do that by itself, if it were in distant space. But ISS is in LEO, which means it is affected by the atmosphere, as weak as it is. So ISS must produce its own attitude and altitude adjustments to maintain its desired orbit and orientation.
The ISS really has NOTHING to do with the Moon issue. It’s just more crap thrown against the wall.
“The ISS wants to keep one side facing Earth, like Moon.”
What side? I never heard of any side of ISS being the earth facing side.
NASA or anyone, would want to get the most amount of solar power, it can get.
60% of the time getting solar power, might seem like a lot to someone living on Earth, but it’s better to get more than 60%.
For instance, there are spots in the lunar polar region, which one can get, 85%.
And relative short distance, one get grid coverage of close to 100%.
What side? I never heard of any side of ISS being the earth facing side.
From Craig’s source: It’s important for the ISS to do this because it was designed to fly in this attitude. We need the communications and GPS antennae to point upwards, we need the meteor shielding to be in the front, and we need the Lab window to be facing down.”
“Is all this irrelevant argy-bargy due to your inability to describe the GHE?”
This particular argy-bargy is due to several people here not accepting the well documented fact that gravity doesn’t apply any angular momentum to objects. The Moon and the ISS only keep the same side to the Earth because both have angular momentum that rotates them once per orbit.
My general issue here is those same people won’t listen to anyone who disagrees with their views on science no matter how high the stack of evidence is against them. If you don’t like Dr. Spencer’s description of GHE or all the other scientists, I can’t describe it any better.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“If you dont like Dr. Spencers description of GHE or all the other scientists, I cant describe it any better.”
Dr Spencer has not described the GHE – which might explain why you can’t quite manage to write his description down, but can spend inordinate amounts of time trying to avoid facing the fact that nobody has described the GHE.
Hopefully, you are not being silly enough to imply there are many different descriptions of the GHE? One per scientist perhaps?
Of course not. If you could produce even one “description” of the GHE which didnt result in you becoming an object of ridicule, Im sure you would.
You can’t describe the GHE at all, can you? No better and no worse than anyone else.
Keep pretending. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, whether you accept it or not. No GHE – not even a little bit.
> Dr Spencer has not described the GHE
Step 1 – Pure Denial
More of Robert Frost answering questions on Quora:
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-ISS-actively-keep-its-cupola-and-therefore-its-orientation-pointed-towards-Earth-as-it-orbits-or-is-it-a-passive-phenomenon
Attitude control is actively done using four control moment gyroscopes (CMGs) and when mission requirements do not conflict, utilizing a torque equilibrium attitude (TEA). A TEA attitude is one that with deviations of up to 15 degrees results in the external torques caused by gravity and drag canceling (or nearly canceling) each other out, over an orbit. The CMGs then just have to produce the torques necessary to perfect that. If the CMGs are taken off-line, the ISS would quickly leave the commanded attitude due to those external influences.
We fly a local vertical, local horizontal (LVLH) TEA. To maintain a local vertical, local horizontal orientation, a four-degree per minute negative pitch (360 degrees in an orbit that takes approximately 90 minutes) must be enacted. That pitch rate is initiated by the Russian thrusters that maneuver the vehicle to an LVLH attitude and are then maintained by CMGs. CMGs are large spinning wheels that store angular momentum. Altering that momentum changes the angular momentum of ISS, itself, creating torques to counter unwanted torques.
“But ISS is in LEO, which means it is affected by the atmosphere, as weak as it is. So ISS must produce its own attitude and altitude adjustments to maintain its desired orbit and orientation.”
Frost made clear in his explanation the difference between adjusting for “external torques caused by gravity and drag” and the constant rotation to keep the ISS facing the same side toward Earth.
Sorry Crain, but he did no such thing.
Your beliefs cause you to see things that aren’t there. If you believe in ghosts, then you’re going to see ghosts.
TYPO alert!
Should be “Craig”.
Sorry.
Craig T,
Is all this irrelevant argy-bargy due to your inability to describe the GHE?
Typical for ignorant and fanatical GHE cultists.
Make sure your GHE description agrees with four and a half billion years of planetary cooling in continuous sunlight, and the fact that during the night the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
Only joking – you’re about to tell me that you’re not stupid enough to waste your time on an impossible task, aren’t you? You could always claim that you have a description – but you’re certainly not going to reveal it to a swine like me!
[laughing at reality-avoiding fantasist]
Mike Flynn,
You are at your very best when you are describing the greenhouse effect –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Whining Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/observatory/design/
“While operating in Earth orbit, the Hubble Space Telescope depends on a robust Pointing Control System to determine the direction in which it is pointing (called its attitude), to turn toward a celestial target, and to remain fixed on that target during observations.”
So, for an orbiting object to always keep one face oriented towards a distant star requires a Pointing Control System. Looks like the “Spinners” belief system is a bust, because that clearly can’t be “orbit without spin” if they have to keep spinning the HST to get it to remain oriented that way.
DREMT
You are still trapped in your Earth-centred reference frame.
The Hubble telescope uses its Pointing Control System to maintain a constant orientation during observations. By definition it is not rotating relative to the distant objects it observes, so is not rotating relative to the inertial reference frame.
The ISS needs to keep Earth observation instruments and the cupola pointing towards Earth, so it’s control system pitches the spacecraft 4 degrees per minute to complete a 360 degree rotation relative to the inertial reference frame every 90 minutes.
"You are still trapped in your Earth-centred reference frame."
Incorrect, as repeatedly explained to you. You may now disappear again, only to return a few days later making the exact same mistakes.
Entropic Man won’t listen, and can’t learn, so this is just for any of the more astute readers:
The "Non-Spinners" will quantify the rate of axial rotation of an orbiting object wrt a rotating reference frame. Of course, they have to, because their version of "orbit without spin" has the orbiting object always presenting the same face to the inside of the orbit.
The "Spinners" will quantify the rate of axial rotation of an orbiting object wrt an inertial reference frame. Of course, they have to, because their version of "orbit without spin" has the orbiting object always presenting the same face to some distant star.
"Non-Spinners" are not defining spin as wrt a rotating reference frame. They’re just keeping the motion "spin" separate from their version of the motion "orbit without spin".
"Spinners" are not defining spin as wrt an inertial reference frame. They’re just keeping the motion "spin" separate from their version of the motion "orbit without spin".
The moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. The moon issue is resolved by which version of "orbit without spin" is correct. Without a viable, physical model of "orbit without spin", the "Spinners" are left with nothing.
“The “Non-Spinners” will quantify the rate of axial rotation of an orbiting object wrt a rotating reference frame.”
Without any science rationale for doing so.
“”Non-Spinners” are not defining spin as wrt a rotating reference frame.”
FALSE. One cannot quantify spin without an equation that DEFINES it mathematically.
” Theyre just keeping the motion “spin” separate from their version of the motion “orbit without spin”.”
Weak post-hoc rationalization.
Wrong Nate. No equation is needed for spin. Spin is either happening or not.
Spin does not happen for Moon. Moon only orbits. Earth both spins and orbits.
The simple ball-on-a-string only orbits, same as Moon.
“Wrong Nate. No equation is needed for spin. Spin is either happening or not.”
Brilliant.
Then it can’t be ‘quantified’ as DREMT claims it is.
And BTW, Clint, you were the one who let the cat out of the bag that what you call Spin of the Moon is measured relative to a rotating reference frame.
Here is where that happened.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2024-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1651342
Clint R says:
March 21, 2024 at 11:48 AM
The ball doesnt spin relative to its forward motion on its path, which is the correct reference frame.
Then Nate says:
“Which is indeed a rotating reference frame, since the forward direction is a vector that is ROTATING.”
and DREMT confirms:
“Yes, the ball doesnt spin relative to a rotating reference frame”
…the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. The moon issue is resolved by which version of "orbit without spin" is correct. Without a viable, physical model of "orbit without spin", the "Spinners" are left with nothing.
Exactly, Nate.
Exactly, DREMT.
They are done, toast, finito, kaput, etc.
If an object is not spinning in a rotating reference frame, then it must spin in an inertial reference frame.
” because that clearly cant be orbit without spin if they have to keep spinning the HST to get it to remain oriented that way.”
Yes, they need to cancel the spin due to its orbital motion.
” No equation is needed for spin. Spin is either happening or not.”
No need for numbers, you either have none of something or you have some of something.
I am sure you could find equations for spin if you opened your physics textbook.
And the correct version of orbit without spin is and always will be the Moon on the right, the one that points in the same direction as it revolves around the Earth.
"They are done, toast, finito, kaput, etc. If an object is not spinning in a rotating reference frame, then it must spin in an inertial reference frame."
bob, that the "Non-Spinners" quantify the spin rate of an orbiting object wrt a rotating reference frame is a consequence of the fact that their version of "orbit without spin" has the same face of the object always oriented towards the inside of the orbit. The consideration of what "orbit without spin" is comes first. "Spin" is then just separate to that motion.
You won’t understand, but that’s OK.
It’s as if Graham D. Warner had to pretend not to read Nate to continue with his gaslighting.
Obviously any variable that can be measured and quantified needs to be defined. Non spinners want to avoid defining it, but can tell you that is rotation measured wrt a frame rotating with the orbit.
Which brings up a question. If, as for the Moon, its orbit speeds up and slows down, then does it spin speed up and slow down?
It’s as if I live rent free in their heads.
DREMT, like Clint, has learned that saying ridiculous things attracts attention in the form of ridicule.
And they seem to crave it.
A short comment from Nate is usually just an insult or some kind of personal remark.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Same with Little Willy.
DREMPTY,
“You wont understand, but thats OK.”
You don’t seem to understand that I do indeed understand your argument, the problem is, that it does not agree with the evidence.
So off with it, into the circular file.
Flogiston = Moon no spin
If you had understood what I just explained to you, then you’d have conceded that reference frames don’t resolve the moon issue. So, I’ll go with you still not understanding, as I predicted. That’s OK.
“an insult or some kind of personal remark.”
Not unlike this:
“Its as if I live rent free in their heads.”
He’s still responding!
“I’m shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on in here.”
-Captain Renault in Casablanca
DREMPTY,
“If you had understood what I just explained to you, then youd have conceded that reference frames dont resolve the moon issue. So, Ill go with you still not understanding, as I predicted. Thats OK.”
Then why are you using a specific reference frame?
You are trying to use a reference frame to resolve the issue in your favor.
Incorrect, bob. The consideration of what "orbit without spin" is comes first. That is what determines the reference frame used to quantify the spin rate of an orbiting object…because "spin" must be kept separate from the motion "orbit without spin".
Like I said…you won’t understand.
And, it’s pointless talking to you about any subject, ever.
> The consideration of what “orbit without spin” is comes first. That is what determines the reference frame
The consideration of what is an orbit without spins determines the reference frame.
Graham D. Warner is a freaking genius.
Yes. If "orbit without spin" is motion where the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit, then obviously a rotating reference frame will be necessary to quantify the spin rate of the orbiting object. If "orbit without spin" is motion where the same side of the body always faces some distant, fixed star, then obviously an inertial reference frame will be necessary to quantify the spin rate of the orbiting object.
DREMPTY,
You got a load of hogwash there.
“Yes. If “orbit without spin” is motion where the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit, then obviously a rotating reference frame will be necessary to quantify the spin rate of the orbiting object. If “orbit without spin” is motion where the same side of the body always faces some distant, fixed star, then obviously an inertial reference frame will be necessary to quantify the spin rate of the orbiting object.”
The one and only way to measure the rate of rotation is with an inertial reference frame.
And not an Earth centered inertial reference frame.
And of course Graham D. Warner leaves to astute readers the homework of determining what’s a spin without any consideration of the frame of reference in which that determination is being made, thus returning to absolute motion but without mentioning it.
But then, if it’s an absolute motion, what is there to determine?
Geniuser and geniuser.
DREMPTY,
“Incorrect, bob. The consideration of what “orbit without spin” is comes first. That is what determines the reference frame used to quantify the spin rate of an orbiting objectbecause “spin” must be kept separate from the motion “orbit without spin”.”
We know what orbit without spin is.
It is the Moon on the right.
That’s the only viable model of orbit without spin for elliptical orbits.
And I thought you said reference frames do not resolve the issue, yet here you are, using reference frames to try to resolve the issue in your favor.
Wouldn’t be prudent.
"The one and only way to measure the rate of rotation is with an inertial reference frame."
Only if "orbit without spin" is motion in which one side of the object always remains oriented towards some distant, fixed star, bob. However, you "Spinners" have a bit of a problem in that you have no viable, physical model of "orbit without spin". That pretty much loses you the argument.
Non-spinners look up at the Moon, and based on their experience of seeing all sides of things that are spinning, they conclude it is not spinning.
This comes first.
Then they learn from astronomy that it IS spinning when viewed from the sun or anywhere else not centered on the Earth. And that it is only not spinning when observed from a rotating frame centered on the Earth.
SO THEN they decide to change “The consideration of what ‘orbit without spin’ is, based on their experience of planes, trains, and automobiles, none of which are relevant for objects in motion in space.
There are no roads, tracks or air to supply friction in space.
So there is no science rationale for their choice of how to define ‘orbit without spin’.
Yet they persist, stuck in their terrestrial thinking.
But they persist.
A long comment, so probably chock full of misrepresentations.
“Without a viable, physical model of “orbit without spin”, the “Spinners” are left with nothing.”
It seems occasionally non-spinners forget that spinners have some pretty darn good arguments that they cannot rebut.
Oh, and then there’s the fact that all of physics, astronomy, and aerospace engineering take the spinner side.
So it is quite laughable and rather path.etic that they would think spinners ‘are left with nothing’.
Motivated by his intense desire to get the last word, which he always projects onto others, Nate continues to respond to somebody who is not even reading his comments. That he will respond to this comment is absolutely without doubt.
Meanwhile, Graham D. Warner just necromanced a dozen of subthreads to PSTer.
…and rightly so.
“Motivated by his intense desire to get the last word”
Much much less intense than DREMTs, as the evidence of his many LAST WORDS show.
Which DREMT always projects onto others, as he does here.
Hypocrisy should be DREMTs middle name!
“Nate continues to respond to somebody who is not even reading his comments. That he will respond to this comment is absolutely without doubt.”
DREMT pretends that he alone is in this thread!
And my posts, unlike his, almost always have facts and logic that the TEAM cannot rebut, thus they try to attack the messenger, as he demonstrates so well here.
Sore losers are always sore.
And when DREMT attacks all Spinners: “‘Spinners’ are left with nothing.”
He is attacking me.
Yet he feels that HE should get the last word on that and spinners should not respond!
Yes, yes dear readers, you are right. He is quite a piece of sh*t.
Nate is very predictable.
We don’t need no stinking badges, and we don’t need no stinking model of orbital motion without axial rotation.
Because that’s off with the fairies and unicorns.
“Only if “orbit without spin” is motion in which one side of the object always remains oriented towards some distant, fixed star, bob. However, you “Spinners” have a bit of a problem in that you have no viable, physical model of “orbit without spin”. That pretty much loses you the argument.”
Orbit without spin is the Moon on the right.
Just like the caption says.
Go argue with the author of that caption if you dare.
I double dog dare you.
Since we have such a model, that pretty much wins the argument for the spinners.
No, bob. A physical model. Not just an animated moon.
It’s as if Graham D. Warner has never seen a Ferris wheel in his life.
Five years over this, and he can’t distinguish the rotation as a single object and a rotation within a system of independent parts.
Yeah, a car on a Ferris Wheel is objectively spinning, Little Willy. Your physical model needs to be of orbit without spin.
"Some of the largest modern Ferris wheels have cars mounted on the outside of the rim, with electric motors to independently rotate each car to keep it upright. These cars are often referred to as capsules or pods."
Graham D. Warner invents a new concept – “objective” spinning.
The point he’s trying to evade with it is that the Ferris wheel axle is independent from the car axles.
Very different than the CSA Truther’s trick!
DREMPTY doesn’t like his sammich and wants a different one.
“No, bob. A physical model. Not just an animated moon.”
Take two small motors that rotate an axle at the same rate.
Use one to revolve a stiff wire to simulate an orbit.
Mount the other one upside down, so it rotates the other direction, on the end of the stiff wire, and put a little cherry on top.
Now turn on both motors.
The resulting motion is the cherry revolving around an external axis while not rotating on its internal axis.
I could build you one, but that will cost you.
Something like that CSI video.
But then we don’t need no stinking model.
We got observations.
DREMPTY,
Also, do you realize that you just pitched your precious transmographer in the toilet?
bob comes up with another model that is objectively spinning.
No, nothing I have said contradicts what the transmographer shows.
DREMPTY,
You just rejected non physical models.
“No, bob. A physical model. Not just an animated moon.”
Isn’t the transmographer an animated model?
bob can never follow an argument. The “Non-Spinners” physical model of “orbit without spin” is the ball on a string. Not the transmographer.
DREMPTY,
That’s why in the space lab video of the ball on a string, the ball has different hemisphere colored differently, so you can see it spinning on its axis both before and after the release.
More simply, the ball on a string is a model of circular motion with axial rotation. Because you can see the ball rotate.
It’s not the model you are looking for.
Is Billy Gibbons guitar rotating on an axis when he’s playing it?
What if he joins YES on a rotating stage?
What about when Billy Gibbons stops playing and starts spinning his guitar, and then joins YES on the rotating stage.
Maybe you have a definition of axial rotation you would like to share.
Obviously that comes before defining orbital motion without axial rotation.
Not arguing with you about the ball on a string again, bob. What’s the point?
As you can’t come up with a viable physical model of “orbit without spin”, we’re done.
See for yourself, Bob:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE_VupU_8NQ
“No, bob. A physical model. Not just an animated moon.”
Oh? Why?
The physical models proposed by the non-spinners are all bad analogies: the ball on a sting, the model moon on a rotating arm.
None of these properly represent how gravity operates in space!
The spinners have a perfectly good physical model of orbits. Kepler observed it and Newton modeled it with physics, 300 years ago.
Astronomers, physicists, and aerospace engineers have confirmed this model repeatedly ever since.
Can’t help but notice that Nate is still responding. Why are these people so obsessed with me?
Exactly, Nate.
Too bad Graham D. Warner does “not” read your comments.
See what I mean!? Obsessed, I tell you.
“Why are these people so obsessed with me?”
Why do you keep posting ridiculous things? Are you seeking to bait people into giving you attention?
Willard,
“Graham D. Warner invents a new concept ‘objective’ spinning.”
It is truly bizarre isn’t it? Let’s ask people in the attached cars if they are spinning.
In fact we can see people in cars who want to be spinning are rocking their cars back and forth, trying to get them to spin!
The Ferris wheel is a perfectly good example of a physical mechanism that moves like the MOTR.
Thus the rules of the silly game are adjusted accordingly to reject it.
I think it’s all those arguments they’ve lost. That’s why I get under their skin so much.
Of course they are, Nate.
When Graham D. Warner loses on physics, he hides behind silly semantic games. When his silly semantic games are being spelled out and refuted, he returns to his silly contraptions.
As long as he can alternate between two positions, he always has something to add. And when he does not, he PSTers.
See what I mean?
The Race to Claim the Arctic – Claims, Icebreakers & Competition in the Far North
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGLZTgkIse8
Perun
–25,979 views 2 hours ago
The Arctic is pretty unique. It’s a place where allies like the US and Canada feud, Russia is still arguably the dominant power and the United States can casually announce a claim to an area more than twice the size of California. —
I just started listening to it.
I of course, immediately thought of ocean settlements- and greening the Sahara desert in regards to ice mining.
Normally I think of ocean settlement in more tropical locations, but you could make floating breakwater from polar sea ice.
Cinco De Mayo for me:
https://i.postimg.cc/MG4N1B7G/IMG-5357.jpg
Hope everyone is enjoying their Sunday.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Meteorologists in Cambodia say the country is facing its hottest temperatures in 170 years, reaching as high as 43 degrees Celsius (109 degrees Fahrenheit).
In Myanmar, weather experts said some parts of the country experienced record high temperatures in the past week. Several towns were included on lists of the hottest spots worldwide in April, in at least one case surpassing 48.2 C (118.8 F).
Parts of eastern India experienced their hottest April on record as a heat wave scorched the region amid a general election.
The recorded highs reflect only air temperature, the historical measure for hot and cold weather. They don’t factor in the debilitating effects of humidity, which can make it feel even hotter.
https://apnews.com/article/asia-heat-wave-photos-5c992950ed0a41606419e472a961b26e
Willard, please stop trolling.
” They don’t factor in the debilitating effects of humidity, which can make it feel even hotter. ”
Xctl!
One of my former colleagues had to leave Germany because his nice employer wanted him to work in the Asian corner. Sydney, Beijing, Manila, Jakarta were his successive stops.
He said already a decade ago:
” 35 C in Manila has NOTHING to do with 35 C in Frankfurt: it’s as if it were 50 C there instead. ”
Today it looks there more like 55 when I read ‘Le Monde’.
Having experienced heat in the Tropics, I put it down to two things: direct rays from the Sun which are much hotter, when absorbed by skin, than in Frankfurt, and there is much more WV in the air in Manila, increasing the heat content of the air.
Alternatively, Mr. Asshat could consider the wet bulb.
“Alternatively, Mr. Asshat could consider the wet bulb.”
Alternatively, you could consider finding a better GHE description than “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Alternatively, Mike Flynn, you could eat your own sammich:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
Mike Flynn,
You are right:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
This leads to your dribblings.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
You could provide an irrelevant and pointless link which doesn’t mention the GHE – and pretend it does!
That would be the mark of a complete loser, wouldn’t it?
Mike Flynn,
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Cheers.
Silly.
Sock.
Puppet.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
You could provide an irrelevant and pointless link which doesnt mention the GHE and pretend it does!
That would be the mark of a complete loser, wouldnt it?
Mike Flynn,
Silly sock puppet,
Here is you:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Cheers.
heck…we get 43C temps here in Canada. Lytton, BC averages at least 43C in summer.
Rough estimate of 8 inches of snow accumulation. When it snows here in May, it snows in the morning, is usually a dusting, and is gone by midday; it almost never accumulates past an inch.
A very memorable late spring snowstorm, even for my older relatives.
Walter R. Hogle likes to say irrelevant stuff.
Shut your dumb ass up, monkey.
Walter R. Hogle is channeling his inner Graham D. Warner.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner has no business here.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner comes as he is.
Little Stalker, please stop trolling.
Craig T
Thanks for your link to an excellent paper:
Verification and estimation of uncertainties of Tobias Mayer’s 18th century astronomical observations
Jaroslav Marek, Jiří Tuček (2023)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379722008282
Though this 27 equation stuff (mentioned over and over – e.g. by Carl Gauss himself, Siegmund Günther, Eric Gray Forbes, Gudrun Wolfschmidt) is imho by no means what matters the most in Mayer’s treatise, these two Czech guys really did an amazing work.
And – as opposed to the arrogant WUWT uncertainty mafia – they perfectly KNOW what is uncertainty, and how it has to be used.
No one is questioning the excellence of Mayer’s work in general. It’s unfortunate, however, that by the time he got it out, a very accurate clock had been invented to keep tract of longitude and Mayer’s work in that regard became obsolete.
I am still awaiting your proof, based om Mayer’s work, that the Moon rotates on a local axis.
With the laser distance panels left on the Moon the uncertainty is now down to a few centimeters. Here’s a link to a recent paper that studies lunar rotation close enough to get an idea what its inner core is like.
The Cassini State of the Moon’s Inner Core
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JE005607
Craig, you seem very confused. In your confusion you’re desperately throwing crap against the wall, not understanding any of it.
Let’s slow down and see if you even know how walking around a tree works.
If you walk around a tree, counterclockwise, does your left shoulder always face the inside of your path?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know. I’m a brain-dead cult id10t.
> Lets slow down and see i
As predicted, Puffman-the-Riddler has returned!
Whacky Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
The laser on the Moon does not help sailors navigate the oceans. That was the initial aim of Mayer, to supply accurate lunar tables to aid sailors in knowing their longitudinal deviation.
Cassini actually wanted to calculate Easter.
Is there anything Mr. Asshat can get right?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
Or you just dribble about Cassini and Easter.
Dribble away.
Mike Flynn,
If Cassini states were more related to Mayer than to Cassini, we would have called them Mayer states.
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
Or you could just dribble about Cassini and Easter.
Dribble away.
Mike Flynn,
Have you lost your footing again or are you simply trying to deflect?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
Or you could just dribble about Cassini and Easter.
Dribble away.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
This sounds a bit like the dribblings of an idiot. Maybe you could try trolling, and divert some attention away from your obvious mental deficit.
Or you could just dribble about Cassini and Easter.
Dribble away.
Robertson
” I am still awaiting your proof, based om Mayers work, that the Moon rotates on a local axis. ”
You are as always an incompetent, ignorant, lying boaster.
*
1. I have shown you many times during the last years that Mayer’s treatise contains a valuable proof of the lunar spin, based on a long observation and an outstanding evaluation of the observed data; a proof you are stypid enough to doubt, discredit and denigrate, though you are absolutely unable to scientifically contradict it.
*
2. I have explained often enough that Mayer’s lunar tables were the most accurate even 50 years after his death because, unlike all other scientists before him (including Flamsteed, Halley, Newton, Hadley, etc.), whose lunar tables were biased by the libration in longitude, Mayer was able, in a long, arduous work based on spherical trigonometry, to separate the orbital and rotational motion of the Moon and thus to calculate 100% selenographic, libration-indifferent coordinates of the lunar craters.
*
3. You are apparently too dumb to understand what it means that Mayer computed for the lunar spin period the same value (27.32166 days, down to the fifth digit after the decimal point) as is done today by using lunar laser ranging of the retroreflectors on the Moon – despite using no more than a simple telescope, a self-made micrometer with 1 arc minute precision and a primitive metronome.
Earlier, after AQ had criticised another commenter for his poor English skills, I endeavoured to show that AQ himself was quite capable of demonstrating his ineptitude in English expression.
AQ took exception, and complained that I had to change his words to make him look foolish
As usual, Antonin Qwerty refuses to provide data to back up his bizarre assertions – a direct quote of what supposedly had to change to make him look like and ignorant incomprehensible fool would have been expected – but no, just wild assertions.
Here’s what AQ claims he didn’t write +
“Only those of us in the middle who follow the real science of the IPCC understand that short term variation is not climate, whichever way it heads, and that only the centre of the distribution represents climate (applicable also to its effects).”
Of course, he is unable to change his earlier comment containing the words I copied, so has no choice but to claim I changed them!
I should point out that anybody who uses the term “follow the real science” is using the word incorrectly, implying that anyone who disagrees must be following unreal or false science, which is just silly.
Here’s what AQ claimed –
“My comment was perfectly understandable in context to anyone with at least a moderate understanding of the English language.”
I’m quite happy to leave others to form their own opinions.
In my opinion AQ is a fanatical GHE cultist, who cannot even describe the GHE, but who claims to “follow the real science of the IPCC”.
Yea, he’s a monkey.
You don’t mean to offend any monkeys by association, I’m sure.
not at all. I don’t think alarmists even know what monkeys are.
Here is one with a sword.
The only “monkeys” here are those that resort to these sorts of attacks.
AQ,
Attack? Do you “feel” attacks are taking place? How would you know if an “attack” was successful – or not? What is one of these “attacks” supposed to achieve?
Feel free to “attack” me, if you like. You won’t mind if I laugh loudly at your impotent attempts, will you?
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. Is that what the GHE is supposed to do?
You sound more donkey than monkey to me. Monkeys sometimes look intelligent.
Mike Flynn,
Still Just Asking Questions? Questions with mind probes? With a little incredulity? No, with a lot of incredulity? By you, the silliest sock puppet in the history of Climateball?
Nay not worry, only you should care about what you are braying. But are you, really?
Long live and prosper.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Just Asking Questions? Is this what you have referred to in the past as JAQing off?
A bit juvenile, don’t you think? You certainly seem obsessed with masturbatory and homosexual allusions, for some bizarre reasons. Nearly as bizarre as you continuously insisting on calling me Mike Flynn – as though it somehow supports your insistence that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”.
As to your fixation with something called Climateball (apparently some imaginary game played only by yourself or with yourself), once again, this has no stated purpose. Just another symptom of possible mental instability.
So keep on believing that you are being subjected to “mind probes”. An astute alien prober would quickly move his probe to more well endowed subjects after rapidly exhausting the limited probable capacity of your puny mind.
Carry on , Willard. By exerting yourself to the maximum, and with a lot of help from other fanatical GHE cultists, you could lift yourself from the ranks of the merely idiotic, to becoming a complete idiot.
Mike Flynn,
You play dumb once again:
Yes, you are JAQing off.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Just Asking Questions? Is this what you have referred to in the past as JAQing off?
A bit juvenile, dont you think? You certainly seem obsessed with masturbatory and homosexual allusions, for some bizarre reasons. Nearly as bizarre as you continuously insisting on calling me Mike Flynn as though it somehow supports your insistence that the GHE is not cooling, slower cooling.
As to your fixation with something called Climateball (apparently some imaginary game played only by yourself or with yourself), once again, this has no stated purpose. Just another symptom of possible mental instability.
So keep on believing that you are being subjected to “mind probes”. An astute alien prober would quickly move his probe to more well endowed subjects after rapidly exhausting the limited probable capacity of your puny mind.
Carry on , Willard. By exerting yourself to the maximum, and with a lot of help from other fanatical GHE cultists, you could lift yourself from the ranks of the merely idiotic, to becoming a complete idiot.
Swenson, or Mikey, or generic sock.
This is what is called in Climateball as an own goal.
Go on, keep scoring for the opposition.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Just Asking Questions? Is this what you have referred to in the past as JAQing off?
A bit juvenile, dont you think? You certainly seem obsessed with masturbatory and homosexual allusions, for some bizarre reasons. Nearly as bizarre as you continuously insisting on calling me Mike Flynn as though it somehow supports your insistence that the GHE is not cooling, slower cooling.
As to your fixation with something called Climateball (apparently some imaginary game played only by yourself or with yourself), once again, this has no stated purpose. Just another symptom of possible mental instability.
So keep on believing that you are being subjected to “mind probes”. An astute alien prober would quickly move his probe to more well endowed subjects after rapidly exhausting the limited probable capacity of your puny mind.
Carry on , Willard. By exerting yourself to the maximum, and with a lot of help from other fanatical GHE cultists, you could lift yourself from the ranks of the merely idiotic, to becoming a complete idiot.
Bumbling bobby is nearly there.
Mike Flynn,
Why are you poisoning the well of a fellow crank?
Silly sock puppet!
Swenson scores another own goal.
Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Craig t from May 4, 2024 at 7:14 PM…with a reply to Ark.
Pierrehumber reveals his ignorance of quantum physics…
Coupled vibrational and rotational states are the key players in IR absor*tion. An IR photon absorbed by a molecule knocks the molecule into a higher-energy quantum state. [T]he energy of the photon will almost always be assimilated by collisions into the general energy pool of the matter and establish a new MaxwellBoltzmann distribution at a slightly higher temperature. That is how radiation heats matter in the local thermodynamic equilibrium limit.
***
Quantum theory is based on the relationship of an electron in an atom with the nucleus. There is no reference in it to molecules or Maxwell-Boltzmann. Nothing Pierrehumbert mentions explains how ‘radiation heats matter’, as he puts it.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. It’s the name given to that particular KE. That is, the energy part of KE, the E, is heat. Call it thermal energy if you like, I call it heat.
When an electron is in a higher orbit, it has a higher KE. That KE translates to heat over all the atoms in a mass. When the electron drops to a lower orbit, it has to shed KE and it does so…somehow…by emitting EM(IR).
For Ark…once that heat is transformed to IR, it is gone…kaput!!! You cannot take heat produced later by GHGs absorbing surface IR, and equate that heat to the surface heat which has already been lost. There is nothing you can do to affect the rate of that heat loss by CO2 producing heat.
Furthermore, the entire surface is radiating and only 7% of that radiation is absorbed by CO2. Even if you could transfer that heat back to the surface, 7% won’t make up for the 93% lost to space.
Here’s the neat part re electrons in orbitals. An electron carries a charge hence an electric field. That electric field produces a magnetic field when it moves. Get it? E (electric field) and M (magnetic field) = electromagnetic energy. If the electron is orbiting at so many cycle per second (more likely bazzillions of cps), the generated E and M field has a corresponding frequency related to the angular orbital frequency of the electron.
I don’t particularly care for that theory even though it is the basis of electrical engineering theory because it is not explained how the electron got the momentum to remain in orbit. Nor does it explain why electrons are arranged neatly with so many electron allotted to particular orbitals.
Bohr did not think an electron moving in an orbit generated a magnetic field. I think he was full of it. Electron theory in the day was hardly known and since, no one has been able to locate and/or measure electron activity in an atom, so how the heck would they know? Bohr surely noted that an electron moving to a lower orbit generates both E and M so why would it not do it in an orbit. Probably too tiny to measure anyway.
So, there you have it, Pierrehumbert’s understanding of quantum theory is null and void. I have always regarded him as a bluff artist, he talks a good show for the good alarmist groupies.
“Quantum theory is based on the relationship of an electron in an atom with the nucleus. There is no reference in it to molecules or Maxwell-Boltzmann.”
You need to expand your knowledge of quantum theory. The vibrations within molecular bonds are as quantum as electron energy levels. Here’s an example:
Classical and quantum mechanical plane switching in CO2
In this article, we show that quantum plane switching exists in CO2: Based on our analytical solutions of the classical Hamilton’s equations of motion, we describe the dependence on vibrational angular momentum and energy of the frequency of switches and the plane switching angle.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0601008
craig t…”The vibrations within molecular bonds are as quantum as electron energy levels. Heres an example:”
***
There is no quantum theory for vibration. The entire theory is about electrons orbiting a nucleus of protons and neutrons in various orbitals. Quantum applies to the discrete orbital levels to which Bohr confined the electrons to orbit.
The outermost orbitals, called valence orbitals, or bands, have electron that can be shared with another atom. In the case of carbon and oxygen, each atoms shares electrons with the other and the linear bonds formed, that hold the atoms together to form a molecule, are shared electrons.
Any vibration is due to those electron bonds vibrating, either length-wise, or about the axis through the oxygen atoms and carbon.
The authors of your quote are speaking jargon. I am supplying you with the straight English-based quantum theory.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“The vibrations within molecular bonds are as quantum as electron energy levels.”
Completely meaningless and irrelevant to the GHE, but you wouldn’t realise that, would you?
That’s why nobody can describe the GHE – as soon as they try, they realise they can’t even make sense to themselves!
Keep flogging a dead horse, trying to convince others that you have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
“The vibrations [. . .] are as quantum as [. . . ]”.? If you are going to spout meaningless gibberish, at least understand what the words mean. You just keep lurching from crisis to catastrophe.
By the way, you didn’t realise that there is no experimental support for the authors’ speculations, did you? Typical for fanatical GHE cultists trying to appear intelligent.
Keep at it, and you might be able to say something, and find an authority to back you up. You aren’t doing particularly well so far, are you?
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for admitting that Mr. Asshat has no business in trying to lecture us on quantum theory.
For once you are useful, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Actually Swenson,
“Completely meaningless and irrelevant to the GHE, but you wouldnt realise that, would you?”
That’s actually the mechanism by which the Greenhouse effect works.
A CO2 molecule absorbs a quantum of electromagnetic energy of a certain energy/frequency/wavelength and starts vibrating.
Then it can transfer that energy elsewhere by emitting another quantum of electromagnetic energy or colliding with another molecule or atom.
The other part is that the CO2 molecule can start vibrating after a collision with another molecule, and then emit electromagnetic energy.
But that’s all hogwash because molecules don’t collide in your universe.
I can’t help you with your ignorance.
“Nothing Pierrehumbert mentions explains how radiation heats matter, as he puts it.”
Pierrehumbert was clear on how photon absor*tion becomes kinetic energy.
“An IR photon absorbed by a molecule knocks the molecule into a higher-energy quantum state. Those states have very long lifetimes, characterized by the spectroscopically measurable Einstein A coefficient. For example, for the CO2 transitions that are most significant in the thermal IR, the lifetimes tend to range from a few milli-seconds to a few tenths of a second. … Therefore, the energy of the photon will almost always be assimilated by collisions into the general energy pool of the matter and establish a new
MaxwellBoltzmann distribution at a slightly higher temperature.”
Craig T,
You quoted –
“An IR photon absorbed by a molecule knocks the molecule into a higher-energy quantum state.”
Ooooooh! That sounds sciency, doesn’t it?
Unfortunately, complete nonsense. Written by the ignorant and gullible for the even more ignorant and gullible. Feel free to demonstrate Im wrong. Make sure you include a valid description of “a higher energy quantum” in your demonstration.
Between you and Raymond Pierrehumbert, who knows less about physics? Or more, if you prefer I phrase it that way.
Neither of you can describe the GHE, which makes Pierrehumbert’s claim to explain something that can’t be described the work of a fool or a fraud.
“Feel free to demonstrate Im wrong. Make sure you include a valid description of a higher energy quantum in your demonstration.”
A higher energy quantum has more energy than it does at its resting state.
“The CO2 molecules have 3 modes of oscillations: symmetric stretching, symmetric bending and asymmetric stretching. The double degenerate bending mode is a ro-vibrational mode which posses rotational moment. Subsequently, the vibrationally excited state is described by 4 quantum numbers. The total number of different vibrational states of CO2 with energies below the dissociation limit Ediss = 5.5 eV is estimated to be ≈10^5.”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6455/ab9d01
craig…all quantum states apply to electrons, not molecules. The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule where 2 O-atoms are joined to a C-atom by electron bonds. All the motion you describe are in the bonds and those are electrons.
No electrons, no bonds, no molecule.
craig…and I explained why Pierrehumbert is wrong. IR is not absorbed by molecules but by electrons in atoms. A molecule has no mechanism to absorb IR other than via the electrons in the atom making up the molecule.
Pierrehumbert’s explanation is aimed at kindergarten kids, the same as with the GHE and AGW theories.
In case you missed it, IR is electromagnetic energy, with an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. The only particle in an atom/molecule capable of interacting with EM is the electron.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“A higher energy quantum has more energy than it does at its resting state.”
You nitwit, there is no such thing as a “higher energy quantum”. This is what you get when you try to be smart by making stuff up. Maybe you really meant to say something else, but didn’t know what you were trying to say.
Linking to a an irrelevant paper, which you don’t understand, is not the cleverest thing you could do, is it? “Conversion of CO2 into CO in microwave gas discharges is extensively studied at present due to its potential significance for production of synthetic fuels and electrification of chemical industry . . . ” is not particularly relevant to anything at all you pretend to understand, is it?
Before you leap to a defence of the author’s speculation and assumptions, you might notice that the author points out in footnote (2) “The author has to admit that although all examples found in the literature fulfill this condition he could not find a formal proof of that property.”
At least the author appears to know what he is talking about, and is proposing a possibly more efficient approach to a seemingly difficult problem.
So no, you haven’t demonstrated that I’m wrong about anything. Colour me unsurprised.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
Who cares what you said.
Here are notes on quantum numbers for diatomic molecules:
http://vallance.chem.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/QuantumNumbersForDiatomics.pdf
Perhaps you could make yourself useful and tell us what Mr. Asshat is braying about?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Silly Willy,
You wrote –
“Here are notes on quantum numbers for diatomic molecules:”
You persist in posting links to things you don’t understand at all. Good for you!
You describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” which demonstrates your depth of scientific knowledge. Cooling is heating, is it? That’s novel!
Are you a complete idiot, or just trying hard to get to that level?
[laughing at fanatical GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn,
You persist in trying to cover for Mr. Asshat.
Do you think you will succeed on deflecting with your usual sammich request?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Gordon, you are wrong about quantum states. IR photons don’t have the energy to move an electron to a higher orbital. How could spectrography detect molecules if photons could only be absorbed by atoms? Look up quantum harmonic oscillator.
“The quantum harmonic oscillator has implications far beyond the simple diatomic molecule. It is the foundation for the understanding of complex modes of vibration in larger molecules, the motion of atoms in a solid lattice, the theory of heat capacity, etc.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hosc.html
Gordon,
I’ll fix this for you, since you have no clue about Quantum Mechanics.
You said
“In case you missed it, IR is electromagnetic energy, with an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. The only particle in an atom/molecule capable of interacting with EM is the electron.”
This would be wrong, and the following more correct.
“In case you missed it, IR is electromagnetic energy, with an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. The only particles in an atom/molecule capable of interacting with EM are the electrons.
Swenson,
Nice try but:
“Ooooooh! That sounds sciency, doesnt it?
Isn’t a very good rebuttal of a true statement.
You really don’t have a clue?
Geeze Gordon, you don’t fook around
You want to straight away start in the World Cup final?
With a couple of Physics degrees from Oxford, and a PhD from MIT, I think his version of Quantum Mechanics is closer to reality than yours, Gordon.
This message brought to you by the Global Climate Cult Society.
“If the electron is orbiting at so many cycle per second…”
Gordon, please don’t describe electrons as little planets orbiting a nucleus then pretend to know anything about quantum theory.
bobdroege, Kreg, please stop trolling.
Here’s some real T data from a century ago, with no GW going on.
Then, same data shown with a linear warming trend added.
https://tinyurl.com/672yabud
Has similar step features and pauses as today’s data.
Nate,
I guess you imagine you are communicating something of value.
Don’t be coy or shy – let the world know what it is! The world awaits with bated breath.
Mike Flynn,
You admit –
> I guess
Just speculation and guesswork, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
“You admit ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
It’s unlikely Willard was born before the 1st or even 2nd decade of the 21st century. He’s likely a child whose parents let him on the internet.
Walter R. Hogle might recognize:
> Don’t be coy or shy – let the world know what it is! The world awaits with bated breath.
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Perhaps he, like Mike Flynn, believes that the world breathes?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You play dumb again.
Do continue, that’s what you do best.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
> You wrote.
Yes, I did.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wrong place, intended it to go in this thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1664926
Oh well.
Nate,
Oooooooh! A link!
What does it say?
Nate, please stop trolling.
Your mother said she is very disappointed in you.
“Your mother said she is very disappointed in you.”
And you are an idiot, if that’s the best you can come up with.
Please stop trolling.
“And you are an idiot, if thats the best you can come up with.”
Well considering that your post, as so often, had nothing substantive to say, other than a childish taunt, I think my response was quite appropriate.
And then, shockingly, we get another from you with no substance and a childish insult.
Your mother said if you nothing constructive to say, don’t post!
Oh and also she wants you out of her basement..
Here’s Antonin Qwerty’s woke excuse for being unable to control his emotions, so he blames it on someone else –
“Flynn believes that if A states that B issued insults in his direction, that A is claiming he felt insulted.
Typical sly language switcharoo by him.”
He’s responding to me, but presumably is endeavouring (and failing) to be insulting, by referring to me as someone else. What an inept peanut!
But to cut to the chase, if AQ or any other precious petal take it upon themselves to feel insulted, offended, slighted or annoyed – good for them! For all I care, the poor darlings can gnash their teeth, flagellate themselves with barbed wire flails, turn blue in the face, or run blubbering to their mummies (or Dr Spencer). My care factor is zero.
I generally decline to feel insulted, offended, etc. What good would it do me? Why should I care what weak minded idiots think? I leave such nonsense to the easily bruised egos which belong to the current crop of limp-wristed handwavers, who love to claim they “feel” that they are “offended”, or “insulted” – as though anybody else really gives a toss about their “feelings”.
My jocular advice would be stop being a girly-man, take a teaspoon of cement, and harden up. Nature doesnt give a fig for your “feelings”, and neither do I.
… as Flynnster plays the girly-man by whining for a page …
Heres Antonin Qwertys woke excuse for being unable to control his emotions, so he blames it on someone else
“Flynn believes that if A states that B issued insults in his direction, that A is claiming he felt insulted.
Typical sly language switcharoo by him.”
Hes responding to me, but presumably is endeavouring (and failing) to be insulting, by referring to me as someone else. What an inept peanut!
But to cut to the chase, if AQ or any other precious petal take it upon themselves to feel insulted, offended, slighted or annoyed good for them! For all I care, the poor darlings can gnash their teeth, flagellate themselves with barbed wire flails, turn blue in the face, or run blubbering to their mummies (or Dr Spencer). My care factor is zero.
I generally decline to feel insulted, offended, etc. What good would it do me? Why should I care what weak minded idiots think? I leave such nonsense to the easily bruised egos which belong to the current crop of limp-wristed handwavers, who love to claim they “feel” that they are “offended”, or “insulted” as though anybody else really gives a toss about their “feelings”.
My jocular advice would be stop being a girly-man, take a teaspoon of cement, and harden up. Nature doesn’t give a fig for your “feelings”, and neither do I.
AQ’s bizarre response –
” as Flynnster plays the girly-man by whining for a page “. Oooooooh, how masterful! How cutting! How completely pointless.
ant…to Christos…”And the synodic period is NOT the orbital around Earth period (to repeat your clumsy language).”
***
Both the synodic and the sidereal periods must be orbitals around the Earth. It’s not on to comment on Christos’ command of English, unless of course you are an ijit, which you are. Christos does really well and he is trying to write in a difficult language (English) which differs greatly from his native language of Greek.
The difference in the two orbital periods is the extra distance the Earth rotates due to its orbital motion. As it completes one orbit wrt the Sun, the Earth has moved a certain distance farther in its orbit and to align with the Sun again, it needs to move a little farther than it would if the stars are used as a reference point.
There, even i English it’s confusing.
Yes Gordon, thanks for explaining something everyone here already understood.
But thanks for supporting what I said … that the synodic period is NOT the “orbital around Earth period”. Perhaps tell it to someone who doesn’t understand, like Christos.
Thank you, Antonin, for your comment.
Of course, Moon’s orbital around Earth period is not Moon’s the synodic around Earth period.
For planet or moon to have a synodic orbital period the necessary condition is the planet or moon having an axial rotation.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Of course, Moons orbital around Earth period is not Moons the synodic around Earth period.
For planet or moon to have a synodic period the necessary condition is the planet or moon having an axial rotation.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Scientists observe a single quantum vibration under ordinary conditions
https://news.mit.edu/2019/single-quantum-vibration-normal-1007
Vintage 2019.
Willards description of the GHE – “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Not surprising that he thinks that a SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE is about some people who “found, with statistical significance, that they were able to create and detect a single quantum of vibration.”
Ah, the vagaries of the fanatical GHE cultist’s mental stability.
Mike Flynn puts his own description of the greenhouse effect into my mouth –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Silly sock puppet!
Willard’s description of the GHE not cooling, slower cooling.
Not surprising that he thinks that a SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE is about some people who “found, with statistical significance, that they were able to create and detect a single quantum of vibration.”
Ah, the vagaries of the fanatical GHE cultists mental stability.
He’ll probably claim Mike Flynn has described the GHE, which is quite ridiculous as Mike Flynn has stated on many occasions that there is no GHE. Just another instance of the troll trying to get others to waste their time clicking on irrelevant links.
What a nutter!
Mike Flynn plays dumb over the “SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE” title.
He might be a silly sock puppet, but he’s our silly sock puppet!
Whacky Wee Willy,
Trying to appear clever by providing more irrelevant and pointless links?
Your cleverness is demonstrated by your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Hardly a demonstration of outstanding intellectual achievement, is it?
Here, demonstrate your awesome brainpower and tell me Im Mike Flynn! That will impress people, I’m sure!
Dimwit.
Willards description of the GHE not cooling, slower cooling.
Not surprising that he thinks that a SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE is about some people who “found, with statistical significance, that they were able to create and detect a single quantum of vibration.”
Ah, the vagaries of the fanatical GHE cultists mental stability.
Hell probably claim Mike Flynn has described the GHE, which is quite ridiculous as Mike Flynn has stated on many occasions that there is no GHE. Just another instance of the troll trying to get others to waste their time clicking on irrelevant links.
What a nutter!
Looks like Mike Flynn forgot that he already responded with his usual braying.
A double whammy of irrelevancies for our silly sock puppet!
Too bad nobody reads them.
Aw diddums!
— Swenson says:
May 6, 2024 at 12:44 AM
Willards description of the GHE not cooling, slower cooling.–
It’s widely thought that the entire ocean [average temperature of about 3.5 C] as being colling for more than 5000 years. But recently it’s been warming.
So cooled quite a bit during “Little Ice Age”, and has been measured to warming in 20th and 21 Century.
And it seems to me, if say lower solar activity, does more than just effect global weather [or causes global cooling] the measured ocean temperature would have get colder.
And roughly I don’t think there is enough time, for this to happen.
Global warming and/or global cooling is a very slow process.
It is likely that UVB radiation in the troposphere, which can be absorbed by water vapor over the equator, is increasing. The decrease in ozone production may result in a decrease in temperature in the stratosphere and an increase in the upper troposphere, due to the increase in UV radiation.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2024.png
Earth magnetic field is getting weaker too. That means higher energy particles like UVB penetrate deeper into the atmosphere.
Ken
That turns out not to be the case.
Earth’s magnetic field reflects charged particles such as protons in the solar wind.
Electromagnetic radiation such as UVB is not affected by magnetic fields.
EM,
At least you are not as ignorant as Ken. That’s something. Not much, but something.
This blog is a microcosm ofwhat people call the factvalue problem.
Science concerns itself with facts, and with theories that turn facts into examples. Values are another kind of system, a human construct. Beginning from the same facts, we can arrive at different values.
You can see this in the comments. People like Craig T, Nate and myself argue from facts and theories.
Swenson, Clint R and Gordon Robertson reject the facts because they contradict their value systems. On a larger scale Republicans reject the facts of climate change because solving the problem requires them to move away from their values of free enterprise capitalism, individual freedom and social Darwinism.
What has politics to do with climate?
Troglodytes made AGW part of their political identity.
Five years ago I couldn’t imagine politics having anything to do with vaccines.
Climate is scientific facts and theories.
Climate change is modification of climate by human actions.
Politics is debating policy; deciding what, if anything , to do about it. For most people that decision is more about values than science.
I don’t really understand why people keep suggesting that our Moon must be rotating around an external axis through the Earth.
The observations clearly show that the change of orientation of the Moon, its ROTATION, is in one plane. And the motion of the Moon’s COM around the Earth, its ORBIT, is in a DIFFERENT plane.
And these planes are separated by 6.7 degrees of tilt!
Thus, it is impossible for the Moon’s ROTATION to be around an external axis through the Earth, because that would require its COM to move in the same plane as its rotation.
Thus, the Moon’s rotation can only be around an axis through the Moon’s COM.
And the motion of the Moon’s COM in its orbit, is in a different plane, and is an ellipse with one focus in the Earth.
This matches the spinner model.
QED
I bet Nate responded in the wrong place. I don’t read his comments, so I can’t be sure, but I suspect that he did.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Not in the least.
Ent, you’re such a phony you can’t even pontificate successfully.
How many passenger jets will fly backward yesterday? Last month? Last year? Ever?
How is the motion of a passenger jet remotely analogous to orbital motion? Orbital motion requires gravity to be the only force acting on the path of the object.
Who said a passenger jet was analogous to orbital motion, Craig?
You keep making up nonsense, having no clue about science, or the issues being discussed here.
You are very confused. In your confusion you’re desperately throwing crap against the wall, not understanding any of it. So much crap we don’t have time to address it all.
Let’s slow down and see if you even know how walking around a tree works.
If you walk around a tree, counterclockwise, does your left shoulder always face the inside of your path?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know. I’m a brain-dead cult id10t.
Your answer, please….
“If you walk around a tree, counterclockwise” do I turn always so that my left shoulder points inwards.
Sorry RLH, but knowing how to walk is part of the test.
If I walk around a tree anticlockwise holding a compass the needle is a stationary reference while the case and my body make a full anticlockwise rotation.
…about an axis in the tree, not on your own internal axis.
Ent answers “c”.
Why should I use the tree as my reference but not my compass? The compass gives me a much clearer indication of the direction in which my body is pointing.
Walking around the tree my body might start out facing North, then West, then South, then East and then back to North again.
For me making a 360 degree rotation relative to the Earth’s magnetic field, or even making a 360 degree rotation around the tree, is much more intuitive than walking in a 360 degree circle around the tree without rotating.
Does no rotation around a tree about once every 10 seconds or so, equal the Moon’s one rotation about its axis every month or so?
They are both rotating at a zero rate, right?
So their rotation rates are equivalent?
No effing way Clown Car Denizens.
"Why should I use the tree as my reference but not my compass?"
I didn’t say to use the tree as your reference. I said you’re rotating about an axis in the tree, not on your own internal axis.
Planets and moons don’t walk or fly like a plane. Do try to come up with better analogies.
“You keep making up nonsense, having no clue about science, or the issues being discussed here.”
I truly don’t understand why you keep bringing up passenger jets.
So you agree with me that the turning is part of the walking?
DREMT
Rotation is measured relative to a coordinate system. Why are you insisting that the extrinsic rotation relative to the tree is valid, but not the extrinsic rotation relative to the magnetic field or the intrinsic rotation relative to my inner ear?
What criteria are you using to judge which of the three coordinate systems should apply? And why should we necessarily accept your choice as the only correct one?
As Kipling once wrote
“There are nine and twenty ways to say the tribal lays; and every single one of them is right!”
This is what I was discussing earlier.
Matematically the rotation can be validly described using several different coordinate systems. But you have made a value judgement that the only valid coordinate systems are those which match your non-spinner beliefs.
Perfect! Another demonstration that it’s all about cult beliefs, NOT science.
Here again is the simple question:
If you walk around a tree, counterclockwise, does your left shoulder always face the inside of your path?
Notice the question does not mention “rotation”, “orbiting”, “passenger jets”, “compass needles”, or “Kipling”. All those are cult efforts to distract and pervert reality.
It’s a very simple question involving reality. The cult runs from it….
Oh, Entropic Man. You simply don’t listen, do you?
Have a reference frame where the origin goes through the tree, and the coordinate system axes are aligned with compass directions. Wrt that reference frame, you change orientation through 360 degrees as you circle the tree. All 360 degrees of that change in orientation are accounted for by the rotation about an external axis (located in the tree), leaving no change in orientation to be attributed to rotation about your own internal axis.
That’s all I’m saying.
Clint R is right though…this is all a bit of a distraction from a simple question, with a simple answer…
So Clint R agrees with me that the turning on your axis is part of the walking?
Sorry RLH, but you’re WRONG again.
Responsible adults would understand.
(Please don’t play in the street, or run with scissors.)
Puffman distracts and deflects because he can’t do the Pole Dance Experiment.
The performance from our Moon Dragon cranks is a bit sad, quite frankly.
DREMT
We’ve been letting our vocabulary get sloppy. External rotation should be called revolution. The person is revolving around the tree, not rotating around it. This can be in any orientation, keeping one shoulder towards the tree, or on Craig T’s frictionless platform or any combination.
Rotation is a separate motion relative to an internal axis.
Consider the Hubble telescope. It’s flight control system combines two modes.
One is the thrusters and gyros which rotate the spacecraft around its own roll, pitch and yaw axes relative to the inertial reference frame. These produce internal rotation.
The other is the Positioning system which aligns the spacecraft with the external coordinate system of Right Ascension and declination.
Any astronomical body such as the Moon will similarly have two types of circular motion, revolution around an external axis and rotation around an internal axis. The measured rates of revolution and rotation depend on what frame of reference you use to measure them.
For the Moon you can choose any one of three. As Cristos pointed out, you can measure revolution and/or rotation relative to the stars, the Sun or the Earth and get three different answers.
Which you choose depends on the use to which you want to put the information, or on your values, your belief system.
Entropic Man obviously cannot refute my last comment, so tries to make it all about semantics.
If you accept that the moon is rotating about an external axis (you can call this “revolving” if you wish) then you accept that the moon is not rotating about its own internal axis. It cannot possibly be doing both. All 360 degrees of the change in orientation of the moon wrt an inertial reference frame would be attributable to the rotation about an external axis, you see, leaving nothing for rotation about an internal axis.
That’s not to say that an object cannot rotate about an external axis and an internal axis simultaneously. It can, it’s just it will not result in movement like our moon.
The only possible way for movement like our moon to be comprised of two motions is if the “orbit without spin” motion is “curvilinear translation in a loop”. Then there could be “spin” added to that to get to movement like our moon.
> It cannot possibly be doing both.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
“Step 1 Pure Denial”
Willard, you’re an idiot.
Please stop trolling.
“Mike Flynn,
You obviously can deny having been served”
Willard has reverted to dribbling idiocy.
No wonder he blames his behavior on being subjected to a mind probe!
Mike Flynn keeps being a silly sock puppet:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Clint, you and DREMT keep bringing up passenger jets. Why?
You, and your cult, keep avoiding the simple question, Craig. Why?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665563
If I walk around a tree and turn while I walk my left shoulder would always be closest to the tree. If I don’t turn my body but step so I go around the tree all sides of me will face the tree at some point
Now set me on frictionless bearings and wheel me around the tree. No torque would turn me while going around the tree. The part of me closest to the tree would change while I went around the tree.
Sorry Craig, but the answer is either “yes” or “no”. There’s no need for directionless rambling. This is not an essay question.
Your inability to address that simple reality means you default to answer “c”.
You’re not alone….
Craig,
When Puffman responds to EM, he mentions passenger jets.
When Puffman responds to Tim, he mentions ice cubes.
When Puffman responds to Norman, he mentions cults.
Puffman has a very limited repertoire.
His main function is to irritate enough people to create a small moshpit in which Graham D. Warner can try to surf.
Which he does as well as he interprets Nirvana.
Silly willy is throwing another tantrum.
He just can’t stand reality.
“If you walk around a tree, counterclockwise, does your left shoulder always face the inside of your path?”
“There’s no need for directionless rambling.”
But direction is the important issue here. If you walk foreword but never turn you never go around the tree. If you travel around the tree but never turn you stay facing the same direction.
In space gyroscopes are useful tools to determine inertial direction. Gyroscopes, like spinning planets and moons, do not change orientation while following an orbital path.
In theory it’s possible for a non-spinning object to keep the same orientation while in orbit, but any slight nudge would start it spinning in some direction. That’s why Newton knew that the Moon had to be spinning on its axis while orbiting the Earth.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665428
Wrong again, Craig.
But I’m glad to see you accept being a brain-dead cult id10t. Some of your cult seems to resent their status. You don’t appear to have the same animus as silly willy, Norman, bob, and Bindi.
Actually accepting that you’re brain-dead is, at least, accepting some reality, huh?
ClintR
Any experienced debater will tell you that you should not resort to insult. It is a tell which signals that you have run out of rational arguments and have let the debate.
Craig T,
Amongst other things, you wrote –
“Gyroscopes, like spinning planets and moons, do not change orientation while following an orbital path.”
Orientation with respect to what? The Webb telescope orbits the Sun, but remains aligned with its current target. However, its orientation with respect to the Earth is constantly changing, unlike its orientation with respect to the fixed stars.
On the other hand, the Moon retains its orientation with respect to the Earth, in free fall towards the Earth, with its near face closest to the Earth’s centre of gravity, as it should be.
Do you have some point to make?
Ent, if you consider reality to be an insult, that’s your problem.
Button it up, son. You’ve got NOTHING.
EM,
You wrote –
“Any experienced debater will tell you that you should not resort to insult.”
Who cares what a debater thinks? You? How silly. If you choose to feel insulted by anything a5 all, that is your right.
I could choose to feel insulted by your description of the GHE as a “stack of blankets”, but I don’t. I find your statement humorous, rather than insulting.
Feel free to complain that you are feeling insulted, or offended, or something of that nature. You could join the strange Willard, and complain that you are being subjected to “mind probes”, if you think that will engender sympathy for your precarious state of self esteem.
You still can’t describe the GHE, can you? That particular subject doesn’t seem to be open to debate. How do you “feel” about that?
Let’s get more specific. Start 1 km away from the tree with your left arm closest. Walk around the tree in 90 minutes, keeping your left arm toward the tree. How many degrees did you turn toward the tree each minute.
The answer is 4 degrees, just like the ISS orbiting the Earth.
craig t…”But direction is the important issue here. If you walk foreword but never turn you never go around the tree. If you travel around the tree but never turn you stay facing the same direction”.
***
Draw a circle of 10 feet radius about the tree and walk around the tree using the line. If you follow the line, at no time are you rotating about a local axis. Your motion is the same as if the circle of circumference 2pi.r = 62.8 feet was stretched into a straight line. It’s true that you have to change direction to follow the circle but you are not rotating about a local axis
To demonstrate this, replace the tree with a pole that has a bearing on it that is free to turn independent of the pole. The bearing has a hook on it to which a rope can be attached. The other end of the rope is attached to a shoulder harness you are wearing. The rope attaches to a hook on the harness at your left side.
If you now follow the line of 10 foot radius CCW with the rope stretched taut you can freely follow the circle. However, the shoulder harness prevents you turning on a local axis. If you try to rotate, you must wrap yourself around the rope, meaning you cannot maintain the 10 foot radius. The same principle applies to the ball on a string.
I assume the rope represents gravity. If so, why strap it to my arm? Why not hook it to a bearing strapped to the top of my head? Gravity pulls on an object the same no matter its orientation.
Then I could turn as many degrees as I want while circling the tree or maintain my original orientation.
The point is the shoulder harness prevents you from being able to spin, meaning the resulting motion must be “orbit without spin”. If you went with your suggestion, Kreg, then – if you maintained the same orientation whilst circling – you would be orbiting whilst spinning, in opposite directions. You know that must be the case because “orbit without spin” was motion in which the same side of your body faces the centre of the circle throughout. Now that you are free to spin, if you are not following that “orbit without spin” motion, you must be spinning whilst orbiting.
Yes Craig, the ISS is orbiting. Very good. Irrelevant, however.
But, “irrelevant” is a sub-category of “wrong”, so you must enjoy being wrong as much as I enjoy being right.
As Swenson would say, carry on.
Clint, the ISS incredibly relevant. Just like the Moon it rotates 360 degrees per orbit.
DREMT, is the gravity pulling on the Moon different than the gravity pulling on the Earth? Why does the “rope” keep the Moon from rotating while the Earth spins?
Gordon, here is what Newton said in book 3 of the Principia:
“But 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; but, as the situation of that focus requires, will deviate a little to one side and to the other from the earth in the lower focus; and this is the libration in longitude; for the libration in latitude arises from the moons latitude, and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.”
Your rope attached to shoulder would never allow for the lunar libration in longitude. That only happens because the Moon rotates at a steady rate while traveling in an elipse.
“DREMT, is the gravity pulling on the Moon different than the gravity pulling on the Earth? Why does the “rope” keep the Moon from rotating while the Earth spins?”
Kreg, why do you work so hard to avoid understanding? I never said anything about gravity preventing anything from spinning.
“The point is the shoulder harness prevents you from being able to spin…”
If the harness prevents you from spinning, it’s not acting like gravity. More so the shoulder harness forces you to turn 360 degrees while traveling a circular path. The Moon isn’t forced to rotate but (like the ISS) it keeps the same side facing Earth because it rotates once per orbit.
Craig is becoming my favorite brain-dead cult id10t.
He’s clearly clueless but enjoys it, so he’s not belligerent like Norman, silly willy, bob, and some of the others.
It’s a nice change….
“Craig is becoming my favorite brain-dead cult id10t.”
Don’t tell Swenson. He’ll be crushed.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“Dont tell Swenson. Hell be crushed.”
You obviously can’t find a description of the GHE anywhere at all, but no matter.
Maybe you could explain the role of the undescribable GHE in the four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, in spite of continuous sunlight during that period. Magical CO2 perhaps?
Or like the fanatical GHE cultist Willard, maybe you could claim that alien mind probes have recently erased the GHE description which you had in front of you recently.
Only joking, you are just doing your best to save face. Keep trying. There is no GHE, of course. That’s why you can’t find a description anywhere! All you can do is claim someone else has one, but won’t let you copy it.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You obviously can deny having been served –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
And that includes your very sorry self, silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
“If the harness prevents you from spinning, it’s not acting like gravity.”
As I literally just said, “I never said anything about gravity preventing anything from spinning“. Maybe go back and read what I did say, instead.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665736
A stalker appears.
Tro.ll Handbook:
When your argument is shredded and you have no science answers, blame the messenger!
A harness does not prevent you from spinning if you use it to connect to something that is spinning.
In that case, the harness forces you to spin.
Sigh.
DREMPTY has no response other than to sigh, when the facts are against him.
If the something that the harness is connected to is rotating about some central axis, then you will be rotating about that central, external axis when you move, and not rotating on your own internal axis. You don’t understand rotation though, bob, so there’s no point us going through this again. Hence the sigh.
DREMPTY,
Sigh,
It’s not my understanding of rotation is wrong.
It’s yours.
Here, it’s quite simple, anything that is spinning like a top, that is spinning, is spinning, or rotating on an internal axis.
That applies to the Moon, the chalk circle on the merry go round, the ball on a string when being swung around, the tetherball in most circumstances, etc.
Is the Moon on the right spinning like a top?
No, it is not.
Is the Moon on the left spinning like a top?
Why yes it is.
bob says he understands rotation, then demonstrates that he doesn’t. Oh well, not my problem. Talking to bob is a waste of time.
Graham D. Warner says he understands absolute motion. He even pretends that the notion needs to be tweaked according to his Very Deep nuances. And then he presents an if-by-whiskey that reveals he knows NOTHING about any of this.
More than five years like that.
If you say so, Little Willy.
DREMPTY,
“bob says he understands rotation, then demonstrates that he doesnt. Oh well, not my problem. Talking to bob is a waste of time.”
You would have to demonstrate that you understand rotation around an internal axis, maybe by defining what you mean by rotation around an internal axis.
Yeah, talking to me is a waste of time, as I don’t speak luddite.
OK, bob.
DREMPTY,
So what’s your definition of rotation about an internal axis?
Sure, bob. Good one.
DREMPTY,
So you don’t have a definition of axial rotation?
Try Mahdavi fig, 2b
If you say so, bob.
DREMPTY,
It’ a no brainer to say the Moon can exhibit axial rotation without defining axial rotation.
Sure, sure.
ent…fact is also relative. In other words, fact to a deluded person is fact to him but may be false to others. I regard you as being deluded. Not only that,you are Irish, hence prone to blarney.
Mr. Asshat confuses fact and belief.
What else is new?
“Mr. Asshat confuses fact and belief.”
Willard, who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, also believes he is being subjected to (presumably alien) brain probes!
Someone may value Willard’s opinion – but they are not going to admit it in public, for fear of the laughter which would ensue.
Willard keeps trying to troll – not terribly well, of course.
Mike Flynn,
Facts are facts.
It is a fact that you are Mike Flynn.
It is another fact that you are a sock puppet.
Beliefs are beliefs, and it is my belief that you are being silly.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
“Mr. Asshat confuses fact and belief.”
Willard, who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, also believes he is being subjected to (presumably alien) brain probes!
Someone may value Willards opinion but they are not going to admit it in public, for fear of the laughter which would ensue.
Willard keeps trying to troll not terribly well, of course.
Mike Flynn,
I am not the one who describes the greenhouse effect as slower cooling.
You are –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
“I am not the one who describes the greenhouse effect as slower cooling.”
Of course you are, dummy. You initially claimed the GHE was “cooling”, I pointed out how stupid that sounded, and you responded “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Don’t you remember what you write? Been subjected to a mind probe recently?
That’s the best excuse Ive heard for a long time – you can’t blame Willard, the mind probe scrambled his brain!
Try posting another pointless and irrelevant link. Tell me I’m Mike Flynn. Hold your breath until you turn blue. Oh dear, you are still an idiot. Maybe you could try claiming that you are not an idiot. That might work!
[laughing]
Mike Flynn,
You assert –
> You initially claimed
I was not here in 2015:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
OK, I’m Mike Flynn. What now?
You’re still an idiot. Are you going to claim I’m lying, now?
[laughing at deranged dingleberry]
Mike Flynn,
Why would I say that you are lying when you say that you are Mike Flynn when it is obvious to everyone here that you are Mike Flynn?
Silly sock puppet!
EM,
You wrote –
“Climate is scientific facts and theories.”
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. You are just an ignorant GHE cultist if you believe otherwise.
The Earth has cooled. Accept reality.
Even the IPCC has stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states. I agree. I surmise that more “climate scientists” are likely to agree with me than you.
That would make you a loser, in fanatical GHE parlance.
Do you want to whine about your “feelings”? Go ahead, while I laugh at you.
Our Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
Since Moons sidereal rotation period 27,32 days (in reference to the stars) is the same as its orbital around Earth period, Moon definitely does not rotate on its own axis.
If Moon rotated on its own axis, Moons sidereal rotational period should have been shorter than its orbital around Earth period.
****
Moons sidereal spin (in reference to the stars) is a sum of Moons around Earth orbital, Moon’s around sun orbital and Moons around its axis movements.
Since Moons sidereal spin is equal to the Moons around Earth orbital movement, Moons axial spin is zero Moon does not rotate about its own axis.
****
Planet Mercury rotates about its own axis.
Mercurys sidereal rotational period: 58,646 Earth days.
Mercury orbits sun in 87,97 Earth days.
Mercurys diurnal period is 176 Earth days.
***
Our Moon doesnt rotate about its own axis.
Moons sidereal rotation period is equal to its around Earth orbital period:
27,32 Earth days.
Moons diurnal period is 29,53 Earth days.
Moon’s sidereal rotation period is shorter than Moon’s diurnal period, because Moon also orbits sun.
Moon’s sidereal rotation spin = 1 /27,32 rot/day
Moon’s diurnal rotation spin = 1 /29,53 rot/day
Consequently, Moon spins faster in reference to the stars than it spins in reference to the sun!
Moon’s spin in reference to the stars is faster, than its spin in reference to the sun, because Moon’s spin in reference to the stars is a sum of two movements:
1. The Moon orbiting Earth.
2. The Moon orbiting sun.
–
There is not any movement of Moon around its own axis.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://www.noa.gr/
christos…the spinners are mistaking a 360 degree change in orientation of the Moon’s near face, wrt the stars, for a rotation about a local axis. A horse running around a track keeps the same face pointed to the inside of the track but it i not rotating on a local axis. Both motions are the same, curvilinear motion with no local rotation.
For the horse to rotate on its axis, the rider would have to stop the horse and force it to turn in a circle. For a car running on the track, the driver would have to slam on the brakes while turning the steering wheels to cause a 360 degree spin.
An ice skater can skate around an oval without spinning about a local axis. To perform such a spin, the skater has to leap in the air and rotate 360 degrees about a local axis.
Gordo, the self proclaimed engineer, wrote:
It’s not a mistake, it’s part of the definition of angular momentum, which involves the rate of rotation of a free body in inertial space. To quantify rotation, it must be measured in an inertial reference frame that is, wrt the stars. That motion does not involve translation, i.e., orbiting.
the No Spin Cult posting here either doesn’t get it or their interest is to disrupt any efforts to understand the science which this blog is supposed to represent.
So can the Earth rotate on its axis? In 24 hours the Earth travels 1.6 million miles. That makes the circumference of a track or ice rink look like nothing.
Sorry Swanson, but that’s wrong.
Spin angular momentum refers to spin around Center of Mass. Moon is not spinning, so zero spin angular momentum.
I did the math – the Earth travels 4.4 thousand miles per degree of rotation.
Grammie clone regurgitates the Cult’s mantra:
Grammie clone is blind to reality, as usual. The Moon rotates wrt the Sun and also wrt the stars. Grammie clone continues to assert otherwise, based on his view of the Moon from his yard, with no scientific proof for support. Perhaps he thinks he will impress other cultist who think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Grammie clone is a hopeless case of terminal ignorance.
Here we can see the contrast.
E. Swanson is like a grumpy old man, and Craig T is like an eight year-old kid playing in mud puddles. Both are clearly clueless about the science, but notice the difference in personality.
“Spin” is NOT in relation to anything you want it to be. Spin is ONLY in relation to the orbital path. As Moon always keeps one side facing its direction of travel, it is NOT spinning. Earth is always changing the side facing direction of travel.
Earth is both orbiting and spinning. Moon only orbits.
Neither Swanson nor Craig will understand, but Craig’s response will be funnier.
> Spin is ONLY in relation to the orbital path.
Puffman has NEVER heard of a spinning top.
If only he could do the Pole Dance Experiment.
“Spin is ONLY in relation to the orbital path.”
The Earth and Moon both rotate 360 degrees over 1.6 million miles of their orbital paths.
Here’s a thought experiment for you: Straighten the orbital path of the Moon and Earth and have them both travel 1.6 million miles. Draw the two bodies at the beginning, end and halfway down the path. Are they facing the same direction at the beginning and the middle? Remember that if the Moon orbits the Earth keeping the same face toward it the Moon has to have done a 180 degree rotation on its path.
The Moon has to have done a 180 degree rotation by the halfway point and a 360 by the time it reaches the end.
As predicted, Craig can’t understand. But, he enjoys being brain-dead.
He can’t understand the difference between “turning” and “spinning”. And, being brain-dead, he can’t learn. So this is just for responsible adults.
In “turning” only, opposite sides of the turning object move in the same direction. In “spinning”, opposite sides of the spinning object move in opposite directions.
It’s just that easy, unless you’re a brain-dead cult id10t.
(Watch now as Craig STILL won’t be able to understand. He has as much fun being brain-dead as I do pointing that out!)
Craig T,
I know that you cannot describe the GHE, so you wrote –
“The Moon has to have done a 180 degree rotation by the halfway point and a 360 by the time it reaches the end.”
And yet, the bottom of the Moon continues to point firmly at the Earth’s centre of gravity.
You might just as well say that a flagpole pointing straight up is rotating on its axis, as it points to different parts of the sky as the Earth rotates. Or every particle of everything on Earth, constantly changing their orientation with respect to the fixed stars.
All this spinning around my internal axis (which is apparently changing depending on whether Im standing, sitting, or lying down) is making me dizzy!
What about you?
Or are you too dim to realise that you are actually spinning around an internal axis while your feet are firmly on the ground?
This might explain why you cant provide a description of the GHE.
Mike Flynn,
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, you must be desperate indeed, if you are appealing to the authority of Mike Flynn – who has clearly stated there is no GHE.
I know you will claim that you are really appealing to my authority, which is equally ludicrous. There is no GHE, you peanut.
Go into a store with a ten dollar bill, and claim it is really a twenty.
Claim that you are really Dr Spencer, and you control this blog.
Claim that the description of the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Listen to the laughter of people agreeing with you that you are obviously right about being subjected to an alien mind probe.
Try gnashing your teeth because nobody values your opinions. I’ll bet you can’t gnash louder than I can laugh!
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
You probe again –
> You are desperate
I am desperately hoping the time that you’ll produce *one* intelligent response. One day it’ll come.
Keep trying to delay the inevitable, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, you must be desperate indeed, if you are appealing to the authority of Mike Flynn who has clearly stated there is no GHE.
I know you will claim that you are really appealing to my authority, which is equally ludicrous. There is no GHE, you peanut.
Go into a store with a ten dollar bill, and claim it is really a twenty.
Claim that you are really Dr Spencer, and you control this blog.
Claim that the description of the GHE is not cooling, slower cooling”.
Listen to the laughter of people agreeing with you that you are obviously right about being subjected to an alien mind probe.
Try gnashing your teeth because nobody values your opinions. I’ll bet you cant gnash louder than I can laugh!
[chortle]
Christos – You say that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. You also say that the moon spins. Spinning and rotating are the same thing.
Global climate temperature is about a long duration of measured global temperature. Global climate is about long duration of time, +30 years. Regional climate changes in shorter time periods.
The region I live in, is hottest in the world, ie:
“Death Valley has been famous for being one of the hottest and driest places in North America. In fact, Death Valley holds the record for the world’s highest surface air temperature ever recorded: 134F observed at Greenland Ranch on July 10, 1913.”
I don’t live in Death Valley, but I am close enough, as far as I am concerned. Anyhow it’s climate has been wet and cold recently, though I didn’t get any snow in my town, this year or last. But lot in lower hills around me, whereas higher hills more often snow.
And California’s drought has ended, with dams at highest levels, ie:
“Shasta Lake water level (daily):
1061.60 feet elevation
Full lake is 1067 feet elevation above sea level.
Distance from capacity:
5.40 feet”
{I not sure why they are keeping it, so close to the top}.
https://i.ibb.co/zxKYxyW/ventusky-temperature-2m-20240507t1200-37n115w.jpg
Starship will be bigger than the Great Pyramids, Elon Musk says
The biggest rocket ever built is expected to launch later this month
https://www.independent.co.uk/space/starship-rocket-height-pyramids-spacex-musk-b2540185.html
It seems what we need in ocean rocket launches.
US Space Force should do something about it.
In addition to having a place for large rocket launches, it’s also related to suborbital rocket launches. And suborbital is perhaps could be seen as more a more pressing issue of US Space Force.
Whereas NASA in going to Moon and going to Mars, could be more concerned about having big rockets, and orbital refueling,
Long as NASA “supported” US military space, but US Space Force should be more interested in supporting NASA. NASA having budget issues {of their own making]. Or it’s good time, for Space Force do something in the national interest.
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/95069504/
“February 18, 1925,
Arctic Climate Getting Warmer, Glaciers Melting
The latest, investigations confirm the theory that the arctic climate has changed considerably in recent years.
The chief proof of the change in climate is the remarkable shrinkage of the glaciers which have retreated three to four miles, showing that the mild air has caused corrosion for a considerable time,
Owing to the altered conditions, Spitsbergen, which in former years was isolated by the heavy ice of the ocean from October to May, may become approachable in winter. And for the first time on record a ship has been dispatched there in February.”
https://maloof.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf1016/files/documents/78maloof.pdf
Glacier ice mass loss in Spitzbergen since 1930’s
ent…” Earths magnetic field reflects charged particles such as protons in the solar wind.
Electromagnetic radiation such as UVB is not affected by magnetic fields”.
***
The Earth’s magnetic field ‘deflects’ charged particles like electrons and protons. Maybe that’s what you meant to say.
There is no reason why a magnetic field should not affect EM if the magnetic field strength is strong enough. Earth’s magnetic field is far too weak to influence EM like UV. I think the EM fields of the Sun may be strong enough to affect EM, however.
I don’t think this theory has been tested adequately. I wonder if anyone has tried to beam a ray of EM past a strong magnetic or electric field to see it it is deflected slightly.
Gordon Robertson
I hope to educate you in the world of actual science and not the blog version of crackpots.
You want to know why a magnetic field would not affect EM. It is because the EM has both magnetic field generated. One cycle could be pulled toward the magnet, the next cycle away. There would be no net change of direction of a photon.
The theory has been tested very many times in particle accelerators that produce both particles and high energy EMR.
Read this when you have time.
https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/other/print-93-0553.pdf
If you look into this the magnets used to move particles are in the range of 1 or 2 Tesla. Light does not bend in these studies at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_(unit)
Here is a listing of different magnetic strength. The include the magnetic field on a solar sunspot. It is much greater than Earth’s but weaker than the magnets used in bubble chambers.
Einstein’s theories are correct. Your crackpot blogs lead you astray. Magnetic fields will not bend light. A curvature of space will. Einstein’s theories have been validated by actual observation. You just reject it in favor of crackpot science (not based upon any observation, experiment or fact, just some crackpot claim…biggest crackpots think Einstein was wrong)
Norman,
I assume that you cannot describe the GHE, either.
That would make your value nil, or somewhat less, in the fanatical GHE cultist population.
However, Einstein’s field equations, and the geodesic forms which can be obtained from them, show that magnetic fields can bend light.
Rotating light using magnets is easy. See the Faraday effect.
Or you could claim that I am lying, as usual.
Off you go, Norman, marshal your army of true believers. Yes, I’m having a laugh at your expense. You just aren’t bright enough to know whether I’m making stuff up or not, are you?
Mike Flynn,
I assume you already got served –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
By your very sorry self.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Willard,
Linking to someone who says quite plainly that there is no GHE definitely supports your belief that you have been subjected to a mind probe (although why anybody would bother is beyond me).
Your description of the GHE “not cooling, slower cooling” is as stupid as most.
Norman can’t find a description at all – maybe you could sell him yours. He seems gullible enough to fall for it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
I did not link to *someone* saying &c.
I linked to you.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard,
Linking to someone (if you say the author is Mike Flynn, I believe you) who says quite plainly that there is no GHE definitely supports your belief that you have been subjected to a mind probe (although why anybody would bother is beyond me).
Your description of the GHE not cooling, slower cooling is as stupid as most.
Norman cant find a description at all maybe you could sell him yours. He seems gullible enough to fall for it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Rotating light using magnets is easy. See the Faraday effect.”
The Faraday effect reinforces Norman’s point that “one cycle could be pulled toward the magnet, the next cycle away.” Magnetic fields affect the polarization of light but not its direction.
Norman,
I assume that you cannot describe the GHE, either.
That would make your value nil, or somewhat less, in the fanatical GHE cultist population.
However, Einsteins field equations, and the geodesic forms which can be obtained from them, show that magnetic fields can bend light.
Rotating light using magnets is easy. See the Faraday effect.
Or you could claim that I am lying, as usual.
Off you go, Norman, marshal your army of true believers. Yes, Im having a laugh at your expense. You just arent bright enough to know whether Im making stuff up or not, are you?
Craig T is about as bright as you, it seems. Neither of you can describe the GHE, but are convinced you should be believed over Einstein. Good luck with convincing anyone who is not insane.
Mike Flynn,
I assume you already got served –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
By your very sorry self.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
“Craig T is about as bright as you, it seems. Neither of you can describe the GHE, but are convinced you should be believed over Einstein.”
Einstein said curved spacetime can change light’s direction. The Faraday effect has nothing to do with general relativity. It’s Gordon that has a problem with Einstein, not Norman.
Norman,
I assume that you cannot describe the GHE, either.
That would make your value nil, or somewhat less, in the fanatical GHE cultist population.
However, Einsteins field equations, and the geodesic forms which can be obtained from them, show that magnetic fields can bend light.
Rotating light using magnets is easy. See the Faraday effect.
Or you could claim that I am lying, as usual.
Off you go, Norman, marshal your army of true believers. Yes, Im having a laugh at your expense. You just arent bright enough to know whether Im making stuff up or not, are you?
Craig T is about as bright as you, it seems. Neither of you can describe the GHE, but are convinced you should be believed over Einstein. Good luck with convincing anyone who is not insane.
For all of the believers in the moon not rotating provide just one website that agrees with that.
For those that believe in the moon not rotating or spinning. Provide one website that says that the moon does not rotate or spin on its axis
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
More than 100 temperature records fell across Vietnam in April, according to official data, as a deadly heat wave scorches South and Southeast Asia.
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-vietnam-temperature.html
Willard, please stop trolling.
Stating an expected forecast of warmer conditions than the previous using an exact numerical value doesn’t convey a clear picture for the Vietnamese public of what to expect for the remainder of the month.
Walter R. Hogle returns to
Step 2 – Saying Stuff
“Step 2 Saying Stuff.”
This from a dimwit who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, which dictates that AGW is certainly not due to a mythical GHE – which Willard claims makes things colder, not hotter!
He’s right – his belief that someone used a mind probe on him has addled his brain.
He’s a fool.
Unclear forecasting begs the question as to whether the agency’s definition of a heatwave effectively conveys the real situation. The criteria for a heatwave vary among many meteorological agencies around the world.
Your link also suggests a similar situation occurred in 1954.
Swenson,
Heat waves are normal in this region.
From a newspaper dated 1935:
“HEAT WAVE IN INDIA
Record Temperatures
Heavy Toll of Life
CALCUTTA, June 7.
An unprecedented heat wave has
taken heavy toll of life in South India. Numerous fatal cases of sunstroke have been reported, and many persons have perished as a result of village fires, the thatched roofs having ignited.
Thermometers in Hyderabad have registered a record shade temperature of 124 degrees, and temperatures of 118 are common over a wide area. Eleven deaths from the heat occurred in Lucknow yesterday, and there were 200 fatal cases in adjoining villages. Animals and birds are dying in thousands. In Assam, on the contrary, heavy rain has fallen. At Cherrapunji, the
wettest place in the world, 23 inches fell in one day.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/30090056/1827504
Mike Flynn,
You don’t seem to realize that Walter R. Hogle just rediscovered teh Goddard. But then, you don’t even realize that the “slower cooling” line is yours:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Silly sock puppet!
It doesn’t look like your link contains the words “slower cooling”, does it?
You lose again.
Thanks for trying to appeal to my authority. I appreciate your grovelling supplication, but have to disavow any acknowledgement that a GHE exists.
Go on, tell me you’re in love with me! You are definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
> It doesn’t look like
Have you looked, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Willard, you nitwit,
You wrote –
“Have you looked”
What, at something you claim I wrote? Why would I not look at what I wrote?
How would i know what I wrote, if I didn’t look at it?
Are you insane?
The world isnt READY for Starship! #spacex #starship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcG1EVwTWdo
Well, one could backup, and ask what is Starship.
It’s more than 1000 launches a year, with payload of 200 tons.
Musk talks about a million launches to get a city on Mars.
But 1000 launches per year is Starship, and that going to take a while. Before that Starship is going to be NASA’s lunar lander and get pay 3 billion dollars to do that. And that would only require about 50 launches per year. And before that, got to test refueling in orbit, which might need 20 launches per year, and probably use raptor 2 engine at that point and not doing 200 tons to orbit,
Anyhow 20 launches a year of a large rocket [Saturn V, SLS, Space Shuttle, or even a Falcon Heavy] is stuff of wild dreams of space cadets.
But by this time, that Starship is doing 20 launches per year, other launch companies could *also* doing stuff which the world isn’t ready for.
Equatorial Upper-Ocean Heat Anomalieshttps://i.ibb.co/qN4TjjT/Screenshot-2024-05-07-07-57-36.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
Your link doesn’t work.
https://i.ibb.co/qN4TjjT/Screenshot-2024-05-07-07-57-36.png
Bumbling bobdroege tries to appear intelligent. He wrote –
“Actually Swenson,
Completely meaningless and irrelevant to the GHE, but you wouldn’t realise that, would you?
Thats actually the mechanism by which the Greenhouse effect works.
A CO2 molecule absorbs a quantum of electromagnetic energy of a certain energy/frequency/wavelength and starts vibrating.
Then it can transfer that energy elsewhere by emitting another quantum of electromagnetic energy or colliding with another molecule or atom.
The other part is that the CO2 molecule can start vibrating after a collision with another molecule, and then emit electromagnetic energy.
But thats all hogwash because molecules dont collide in your universe.
I cant help you with your ignorance.”
I’ll start with blundering bobby writing “Thats actually the mechanism by which the Greenhouse effect works.” He can’t actually describe the GHE, but claims to know how a mythical effect “works”. Here’s one of bobdroege’s idiotic attempts at a description “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
He’ll probably claim he was only trolling, and the dog ate the real description.
All fanatical GHE cultists completely refuse to believe that CO2 can interact with photons of infinite energy levels, just like all other matter in the universe. They positively refuse to accept that CO2 can be heated by simple compression, for example, to temperatures of 500 C, say, and will cool all the way to absolute zero, if allowed to do so, emitting photons of progressively longer wavelengths proportional to its absolute temperature.
But all this is irrelevant – there is no GHE, and the Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago, four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight notwithstanding.
He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed, is bobdroege. Refuses to accept reality. Barking mad.
“He cant actually describe the GHE, but claims to know how a mythical effect ‘works’.”
Bobdroege wrote:
“A CO2 molecule absorbs a quantum of electromagnetic energy of a certain energy/frequency/wavelength and starts vibrating.
Then it can transfer that energy elsewhere by emitting another quantum of electromagnetic energy or colliding with another molecule or atom.
The other part is that the CO2 molecule can start vibrating after a collision with another molecule, and then emit electromagnetic energy.
But that’s all hogwash because molecules don’t collide in your universe.”
Ignore the part about molecules not colliding, you suggested that.
GHE is the Earth retaining more of the energy from the sun through that mechanism.
Craig T,
There is no GHE, you ninny.
You wrote –
“Ignore the part about molecules not colliding, you suggested that.
GHE is the Earth retaining more of the energy from the sun through that mechanism.”
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. The surface cannot even retain the energy of the Sun overnight.
You must live in an alternate fantasy universe. You fanatical GHE cultists are a strange lot – you point-blank refuse to accept that there is no GHE, even going so far as to say that I have described a GHE (there is no GHE), and have described how it works!
What a pack of insane fantasists. Accept reality – there is no GHE. Or reject reality, if you wish. Neither reality nor I care.
Unless you can come up with a fact or two to support your GHE fantasy, you will come across looking like you are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Carry on,
Craig believes: “GHE is the Earth retaining more of the energy from the sun through that mechanism.”
Sorry Craig, but that nonsense is NOT the bogus GHE. That mechanism is referring to “heat capacity”, as in all matter, including strawberries and bananas, retaining thermal energy. The bogus GHE claims CO2 raises Earth’s surface temperature. CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
It’s okay that you don’t understand your own cult’s nonsense. No one in your cult understands it either. That’s why you’re all id10ts. And, you can’t learn. That’s because you’re brain-dead.
Prove me wrong.
Clint, are you saying 12 cm microwave photons can’t raise the temperature of 288K leftover pizza?
No Craig. I’m saying you don’t have a clue.
A microwave oven is a manmade device, with the ability, by design, to over-excite molecules. Microwave ovens do not exist in the atmosphere. Responsible adults can study “entropy”.
Us usual, you won’t be able to understand any of this. You can’t learn.
Clint R
You are far from correct when you think GHE means Photons from CO2 warm the Earth surface. Many times you are corrected and yet you do not understand the GHE. It is allowing the solar input to force a higher surface temperature because of a reduction in radiant heat lost by the surface due to GHG. It is similar why the air in a car on a sunny day gets much warmer than air outside the car. I don’t think you will ever be able to correctly understand how the GHE works.
“Microwave ovens do not exist in the atmosphere.”
The laws of physics are different in kitchens than in the atmosphere, claims Clint.
Because in the atmosphere, photons too low in energy cannot possibly raise the temperature of surfaces that are warmer.
But in kitchens that is allowed!
That’s ok because fake physics doesnt need to be consistent.
Wrong again, Norman.
A parked car in sun could easily warm to over 130F. That’s due to the high energy photons from Sun. But, at night the sky could NOT warm the car to any such level. No GHE.
You don’t understand, and you can’t learn. You should take a lesson from Craig. He enjoys being a brain-dead cult id10t. He doesn’t use all the cult tactics, like you.
Clint R
Again you demonstrate you cannot understand the GHE. In the real GHE it is still the Sun as the heat source for the surface. The GHE works like insulation but of radiant energy not conduction. With the GHE the sky will not warm the ground at night but will slow the cooling rate. When you claim I am wrong at least attempt to follow my line of logic.
Norman, that only amounts to “slowed cooling is warming”. If that’s the best you can do for the bogus GHE, then you’ve got nothing.
You better check in with your cult however. They teach CO2 can increase surface temperatures. That ain’t science.
Clint R
I am not sure what is wrong with your thought process. It seems you can’t process information.
Read this and try to understand it before you mindlessly post an insulting comment.
A HEATED object (caps so you can take it in) will generally reach a higher temperature if you reduce the amount of heat loss by insulation.
If you not agree with this, no one can help you!
Wrong again, Norman.
It depends on how the object is “heated”. You can NOT boil water with ice cubes, for example.
Rather than you tr0lling here endlessly, why not submit your statement of your believed GHE nonsense. Just put down in words how you believe CO2 can warm the planet. Make sure you will stick with your statement. No alterations, amendments, or revisions are allowed. If you believe in your nonsense, you should be able to state it.
Then, I will show you the violations of the principles of physics.
Go for it….
“Norman, that only amounts to ‘slowed cooling is warming'”.
That’s why I asked if you ever wore a coat. A coat keeps you warm by reducing the rate of cooling.
The Earth is heated by shortwave radiation passing through the atmosphere. It cools by longwave radiation leaving the atmosphere. When some of that radiation is converted back to heat before leaving the Earth the planet cools slower.
This is why Craig is my favorite cultist: “When some of that radiation is converted back to heat before leaving the Earth the planet cools slower.”
Gosh, if we could only “convert” cold back into “heat”.
Clint R
I have already described the GHE to you. I guess you want it again.
Solar energy is the primary heat source for the Planet Earth Surface. There is some geothermal energy but it is not significant.
Some IR solar energy is absorbed by the atmosphere on its way to the surface. The majority reaches the surface.
The mostly visible solar spectrum EMR is absorbed by the surface and is converted into thermal energy. The surface emits lower frequency IR which a significant quantity is absorbed by the atmosphere. The atmosphere returns IR to the surface which reduces the amount of HEAT the surface will lose as the surface absorbs the IR reducing the rate of internal heat loss. This allows the solar input to achieve a higher surface temperature.
Now it is your turn. Why is the air inside a car hotter than the air outside the car on a sunny summer day?
“Gosh, if we could only ‘convert’ cold back into ‘heat'”.
Is that what your coat does?
Norman, you had one chance, and you blew it.
Your task was:
Rather than you tr0lling here endlessly, why not submit your statement of your believed GHE nonsense. Just put down in words how you believe CO2 can warm the planet. Make sure you will stick with your statement. No alterations, amendments, or revisions are allowed. If you believe in your nonsense, you should be able to state it.
Your first attempt did not even mention CO2. CO2 is the “heart and soul” of your cult’s GHE nonsense. Do you even understand your cult’s nonsense?
You don’t understand any more than Craig. You’re just more antagonistic and belligerent.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“A coat keeps you warm by reducing the rate of cooling.”
Not unless you are alive. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, regardless of “planetary insulation”.
Are you thick, or just pretending? No wonder you don’t even try to describe the mythical GHE!
You can’t even figure out how it cooled the Earth!
Nutty Norman,
You wrote –
“You are far from correct when you think GHE means Photons from CO2 warm the Earth surface.”
There is no GHE. That’s why you can’t describe it.
You come up with nonsense implying that you can describe the GHE. Like “It is similar why the air in a car on a sunny day gets much warmer than air outside the car.”
No it’s not, you idiot. There is no GHE. Try and describe it – you can’t. Nobody can.
Carry on babbling nonsense.
> Prove me wrong.
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Another idiotic utterance from Willard –
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
What can you expect from a dingleberry who claims cooling is warming?
Where did I claim that cooling was warming, Mike?
“All fanatical GHE cultists completely refuse to believe that CO2 can interact with photons of infinite energy levels, just like all other matter in the universe.”
On a sunny day, only the light in the shadows interacted with matter. The rest passed through the atmosphere as easily as a vacuum.
Pure nonsense, Craig.
But funny….
Craig T,
According to NASA (and Tyndall) the atmosphere absorbs (interacts with) about 35% of the Sun’s radiation.
Maybe you could say something idiotic like “On a sunny day, only the light in the shadows interacted with matter. The rest passed through the atmosphere as easily as a vacuum.”
Did you have put a lot of effort into looking foolish, or does it come naturally?
Maybe you could try really, really, hard, and devise a foolish description of the GHE. Here’s one by bobdroege – “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Can you improve on that?
All matter interacts with EM whether in the shade or not. Ever hear of scattering. Ever wonder why the sky appears blue, the oceans different colours, or why there are different colours at sunset?
“All matter interacts with EM whether in the shade or not. Ever hear of scattering. Ever wonder why the sky appears blue, the oceans different colours, or why there are different colours at sunset?”
I was talking about the light that interacted with matter before it reached the ground. Shadows on Earth are not as dark as on the Moon because of the scattering.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“On a sunny day, only the light in the shadows interacted with matter. The rest passed through the atmosphere as easily as a vacuum.”, then, after you were caught out denying reality, tried to wriggle out of what you said, by writing –
“I was talking about the light that interacted with matter before it reached the ground.”
That doesn’t work, either. The atmosphere consists of matter, whether you accept it or not.
You can’t avoid the fact that the GHE is a myth by demonstrating your ignorance of physics in general. Keep wriggling – you are just another ignorant and fanatical GHE cultist.
Keep waffling – the more you do it, the more evasive you appear.
Swenson,
Riddle me this:
You can see CO2 when in its solid form, but you can’t see it when in its gaseous form.
I’ll give you the answer.
50 bucks.
Swenson,
“All fanatical GHE cultists completely refuse to believe that CO2 can interact with photons of infinite energy levels, just like all other matter in the universe.”
If by interact you mean CO2 transmits photons of certain energies, then yes, that statement is correct.
But no, matter is selective about which photons energy levels that the matter interacts with.
CO2 as a gas is transparent (ie transmits) photons of most energies, but is opaque (abzorbs) to certain energy levels.
You insult me, but you get the science wrong.
One thing chemists can do, that troglodytes like Swenson can’t do, is identify matter by the way it interacts with various wavelengths of light.
As an analytical chemist, that’s what I do for a living.
bobdroege, you mentioned before that you read meters and push buttons.
“As an analytical chemist, thats what I do for a living.”
Unfortunately, as you have also admitted before, it is quite easy for me to ask questions that you cannot answer – they require actual thought, and cannot just be looked up on the internet.
You cannot describe the GHE, nor can Craig T, nor any other fanatical GHE cultists – because you are trying to describe something that doesnt exist. You cannot even say whether this mythical GHE is supposed to make thermometers hotter or colder, can you?
As to the possibility of CO2 interacting with photons of any wavelength at all, I will wager that you cannot specify a photon wavelength with which CO2 will not interact under any circumstances. For example CO2 at 1 K will interact with very low energy 2 K photons, but not the other way round. So much for CO2 only absorbing photos of particular frequencies!
The photons from a surface at 20 C will be absorbed by CO2 at 10 C, raising the temperature of the CO2. CO2 at 10 C will not, however, will not raise the temperature of a 20 C object – unless in some fanatical GHE cultist’s fantasy.
As I mentioned before, CO2 at 20 C can be raised to a temperature of 500 C merely by smartly compressing it. It then radiates photons of wavelengths proportional to that temperature, which interact with the matter comprising the walls of the cylinder, regardless of composition. Don’t try raising CO2 to a temperature of 500 C in a plastic cylinder which melts at 350 C!
CO2 can both absorb and emit photons of any wavelength at all, consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. Obviously, CO2 at 20 C cannot absorb 15u photons emitted by a body colder than 20 C. Ice at -80 C will not raise the temperature of CO2 at 20 C, no matter how many 15 u photons it emits.
You still cant even say what the GHE has s supposed to do, can you? That’s because you are both ignorant and gullible. Demonstrate Im wrong – tell me what the GHE is supposed to do. Obviously not heating the Earth – the Earth is cooler now than four and a half billion years ago.
Go on, display your vast analytical chemical knowledge!
“As to the possibility of CO2 interacting with photons of any wavelength at all, I will wager that you cannot specify a photon wavelength with which CO2 will not interact under any circumstances.”
Swenson, this is an infrared spectrum of carbon dioxide gas.
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
A transmitance of 1 means that wavelength passed through the gas unaffected. Notice the specific wavelengths that CO2 absorbs and the large range of wavelengths it will not.
This spectrum is part of the NIST Standard Reference Database to aid analytical chemists in identifying chemicals in unknown samples.
When can Bobdroege collect?
I wrote –
“I will wager that you cannot specify a photon wavelength with which CO2 will not interact under any circumstances.”
You haven’t, have you? Once again, like all ignorant and fanatical GHE cultists, you link to a source which supports me.
You cannot specify a photon wavelength with which CO2 will not interact under any circumstances. If you are not a fool, you are doing a tolerably good imitation of one.
Carry on.
Swenson,
Unfortunately for you, you need a basic science competency to understand the physics involved, you have not displayed such competency.
“You cannot describe the GHE, nor can Craig T, nor any other fanatical GHE cultists because you are trying to describe something that doesnt exist. You cannot even say whether this mythical GHE is supposed to make thermometers hotter or colder, can you?”
Well, it depends on where the thermometers are, the GHE makes the surface warmer and the upper atmosphere cooler.
“As to the possibility of CO2 interacting with photons of any wavelength at all, I will wager that you cannot specify a photon wavelength with which CO2 will not interact under any circumstances. For example CO2 at 1 K will interact with very low energy 2 K photons, but not the other way round. So much for CO2 only absorbing photos of particular frequencies!”
I could, but first we need to clear up your misunderstanding that photons have a temperature, they don’t. Stop making stuff up and drooling in your Maypo.
“The photons from a surface at 20 C will be absorbed by CO2 at 10 C, raising the temperature of the CO2. CO2 at 10 C will not, however, will not raise the temperature of a 20 C object unless in some fanatical GHE cultists fantasy.”
So you say, do you have any evidence, other than the Maypo on your chin?
“As I mentioned before, CO2 at 20 C can be raised to a temperature of 500 C merely by smartly compressing it. It then radiates photons of wavelengths proportional to that temperature, which interact with the matter comprising the walls of the cylinder, regardless of composition. Dont try raising CO2 to a temperature of 500 C in a plastic cylinder which melts at 350 C!”
Not true again. If you can compress the CO2, it must be in the gaseous state, which means it does not emit like a blackbody, but only emits the frequencies allowed by the available molecular transitions available.
“CO2 can both absorb and emit photons of any wavelength at all, consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. Obviously, CO2 at 20 C cannot absorb 15u photons emitted by a body colder than 20 C. Ice at -80 C will not raise the temperature of CO2 at 20 C, no matter how many 15 u photons it emits.”
When a photon interacts with a CO2 molecule, it carries no information related to the temperature of the molecule that emitted it.
“You still cant even say what the GHE has s supposed to do, can you? Thats because you are both ignorant and gullible. Demonstrate Im wrong tell me what the GHE is supposed to do. Obviously not heating the Earth the Earth is cooler now than four and a half billion years ago.”
The Earth is warmer than it was in 1979 when the graph at the top of the page starts.
Maybe we could have a substantial conversation if you get your facts straight.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
DR EMPTY,
Stop feeding the trxlls
#2
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
The CO2 is a trace gas in the Earth’s actually thin atmosphere
(1 bar at sea level).
One should use the spectroscopy methods to accurately measure the existence of ~ 400 ppm CO2, or 1 molecule CO2 in 2500 molecules of air.
–
It is a scientific achievement the CO2 was ever detected, and its content measured in the Earth’s thin air.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s right.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2024.png
That’s right.
Also they visualise the CO2 interaction with upgoing IR EM energy as some tiny billiard balls (photons) striking some other tiny billiard balls (the CO2 molecules).
By doing so, by visualising, they inevitably conclude, that surely, at their path through the atmosphere, all the 15μ photons should met with and collide with some CO2 molecule, which molecule happens somewhere along the path blocking the passage to the 15μ photon.
It is a mistaken thing to do – visualising the EM energy /matter interaction process.
Molecules are not balls, and photons are not balls either.
The EM energy is a wave. Molecules is the matter. What they do is to interact – they do not collide as some billiard balls do.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes it must be a wave, because in the lower mesosphere and upper stratosphere, where the pressure drops below 0.0004 bar, the amount of air particles is very low, but in this layer UV radiation below 240 nm produces ozone.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
“Titan’s atmosphere is more massive than that on Earth, and the surface pressure is comparable at around 1.5 bar. The average surface temperature is around 95 K. Titan is the only known body in our solar system, apart from Earth, where an active weather system is present with a full cycle of evaporation from the surface, formation of clouds and precipitation (rain). While on Earth it is water that follows this cycle, on Titan it is primarily Methane.”
http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/~ingomw/Home_Page/Titan.html
Also,
Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)
“The atmosphere of Titan is largely nitrogen; minor components lead to the formation of methane and ethane clouds and heavy organonitrogen haze. The climateincluding wind and raincreates surface features similar to those of Earth, such as dunes, rivers, lakes, seas (probably of liquid methane and ethane), and deltas, and is dominated by seasonal weather patterns as on Earth. With its liquids (both surface and subsurface) and robust nitrogen atmosphere, Titan’s methane cycle bears a striking similarity to Earth’s water cycle, albeit at the much lower temperature of about 94 K (−179 C; −290 F).”
Massive Update: SpaceX’s Next Starship is ready! Flight 4 in 3 weeks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcWESQE8cdM
What about it!?
421K subscribers
At the end, it talks about SpaceX spacesuit.
Back to future, using earlier Gemini design spacesuit [using tethered life support].
I was think if using a lot vehicles with Moon and Mars, it seems crew could use this on lunar and Mars surface.
The other thing, it reminded me they going to a fairly high LEO orbit. I hope they do some radiation measurements while they are so high.
The Rotational Warming is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON, because what we have discovered is that for all planets and moons the average surface temperatures, measured by satellites (Tsat) RELATE, (everything else equals), as their respective (N*cp) product in SIXTEENTH ROOT.
(Tsat.planet.1) /(Tsat.planet.2) =
= [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ] ^1/16
Where:
Tsat – Kelvin, is the planet’s average surface temperature
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
**********************
Example: Planet 2 rotates twice as fast as Planet 1.
(N2) = 2*(N1) everything else equals,
(T1) /(T2)= [ (N1) /(N2) ] ^1/16
(T2) = (21/16)*(T1) = 1,0443*(T1)
If (T1) = 250K,
(T2) = 1,0443*250K =
= 261K
**************
Also, we have corrected their respective Blackbody Effective Temperatures (Te),because we concluded that planets and moons with smooth surface have a STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Io orbits Jupiter at a distance of 421,700 km (262,000 mi) from Jupiter’s center and 350,000 km (217,000 mi) from its cloudtops. It is the innermost of the Galilean satellites of Jupiter, its orbit lying between those of Thebe and Europa. Including Jupiter’s inner satellites, Io is the fifth moon out from Jupiter. It takes Io about 42.5 hours (1.77 days) to complete one orbit around Jupiter (fast enough for its motion to be observed over a single night of observation). Io is in a 2:1 mean-motion orbital resonance with Europa and a 4:1 mean-motion orbital resonance with Ganymede, completing two orbits of Jupiter for every one orbit completed by Europa, and four orbits for every one completed by Ganymede. This resonance helps maintain Io’s orbital eccentricity (0.0041), which in turn provides the primary heating source for its geologic activity. Without this forced eccentricity, Io’s orbit would circularize through tidal dissipation, leading to a less geologically active world.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)
So, Earth shine, shines on nearside of the Moon. And Jupiter shine shines on the nearside of Io.
Io would have other moon’s shine on it’s farside.
Io is similar to our Moon, it slightly more gravity and doesn’t have much water. Though Io is very volcanic as compared to the Moon.
Oh, but also Io has a fairly short day as compared to our Moon.
Earth appears quite big on the Moon, but Jupiter would appear much bigger from Io.
Jupiter would block the sun and sun is quite small at that distance- At Jupiter distance the sunlight is 55.8 watts per square meter to 45.9 watts per square meter [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight].
It gets less solar energy than Antarctica, but it would get more viable solar power than Antarctica.
So, a daunting question, does Io have more viable solar energy than Germany.
One question is can you solar energy from the reflected sunlight from Jupiter.
And such question is related to question, which is better, the nearside of Io vs the farside side Io.
Also got Jupiter, providing light on nearside and not getting that “moonlight” on the farside, but you get the moonlight of the many moons of Jupiterpm the farside, and Europa being closest and it’s large and it’s covered in bright ice {unlike our dark colored moon].
“It takes Io about 42.5 hours (1.77 days) to complete one orbit around Jupiter (fast enough for its motion to be observed over a single night of observation). Io is in a 2:1 mean-motion orbital resonance with Europa ”
–
Io is in a 2:1 mean-motion orbital resonance with Europa,
also Io average surface specific heat is cp = 0,145 cal/gr*oC, whereas Europa is cp = 1 cal/gr*oC.
Thus, Io rotates twice as fast, but Io has 1/0,145 = 6,89 smaller average surface cp.
Both Io and Europa have the same Albedo a = 0,63
Io has warming factor =(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴= 1,8647
Io has average surface temperature measured by satellite
Tsat.io = 110K
Europa has Tsat.europa = 102K
And has Europa warming factor =(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴= 2,5494
But also Europa is characterized as the smoothest object in entire solar system.
So Φeuropa = 0,47 vs Φio = 1.
Let’s compare:
[(1,8647 /2,5494) /0,47 ]∕ ⁴ = 1,116
110K /102K = 1,07
the 1,116 and 1,07 are very close ~ 3% difference.
And that is why Io is warmer than Europa
(Tsat.io = 110K vs Tsat.europa = 102K)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Thus, Io rotates twice as fast, but Io has 1/0,145 = 6,89 smaller average surface cp.”
To make it clear, Io is in lower orbit, each orbit, goes a shorter distance and at a higher orbiting velocity.
But also Europa is characterized as the smoothest object in entire solar system.
So Φ.europa = 0,47 vs Φ.io = 1.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
DREMT
DREMT
The Moon rotates on its axis and revolves around Earth in its orbit. Measured over a complete orbit they have the same period.
You can demonstrate that there are two motions because at some points in the orbit the rotation rate and the revolution rate diverge.
At apogee in its elliptical orbit the angular revolution rate is slower than the angular rotation rate and the Moon is seen to rotate anticlockwise from a viewpoint on Earth’s surface.
At perigee the angular revolution rate is faster than the angular rotation rate and the Moon is seen to rotate clockwise.
You’ll recognise this effect as libration in longitude. It would not occur if the the Moon moved in the same way as the man walking around the tree. Scrap that analogy.
Wrong as usual, Ent.
Moon only orbits. If it spun we would see all sides of it from Earth. Study the simple ball-on-a-string, if you’re confused.
You would see the same effect if the man was walking around a large enough ellipse while carry a placard that he kept aimed along a radial line to the elliptical path. A viewer located at one focal point would see more of the placard face as the man walked around the elliptical path.
That’s not proof that the Moon is rotating about a local axis.
When Mr. Asshat walks around the table he is rotating his body on its axis. He could easily know this by observing his feet. As he picks his foot up he must rotate it to keep walking around the table. If he does not rotate his feet and body he walks in a straight line away from the table. Not only can’t he understand this he also can’t observe it. His mind is stuck in closed mind mud spinning his wheels endlessly but not moving.
H/T Norman.
If I walked for a bit, stopped, and turned in a circle on the spot, that would be rotating about a local axis. Wee willy doesn’t know the difference between rotating about an axis, and essentially walking along a line.
On the other hand, if you took the ellipse, stretched it into a straight line, and walked along it, you’d be performing exactly the same motion…translation without rotating.
Try not to take on an engineer with silly arguments, wee willy.
Mr. Asshat basically doesn’t understand that when he walks around his kitchen table he isn’t walking along a line, but an ellipse.
It is as if he believed that his kitchen table was the center of a spherical universe or something.
“It is as if he believed that his kitchen table was the center of a spherical universe or something.”
As Einstein (as reported by Richard Muller) said, that’s a perfectly valid way of looking at the universe.
You know better, of course, don’t you, Willard?
In your strange fantasy world, anyway.
By the way, I claim that I am Mike Flynn. What are you going to do about it?
Donkey.
You live down under, Mike.
Why would you take a table in Vancouver as the center of the universe?
Take a top, spin it and observe.
Does it stay in one spot?
Well sometimes is does, but sometimes it moves.
When it moves, does it stop rotating around its axis?
By the way, I am at the center of the observable universe, which is indeed spherical.
But then there are parts of the universe that are not visible to us.
Swenson,
“As Einstein (as reported by Richard Muller) said, thats a perfectly valid way of looking at the universe.”
Einstein would have said part of the universe.
The observable part, which is smaller than the whole universe.
The Moon rotates at a constant rate relative to the inertial reference frame, with a constant angular momentum. That is possible.
Relative to the Earth, the Moon’s rotation speeds up and slows down, requiring constant changes in angular momentum. This is impossible.
As Feynman said “If it doesn’t agree with experiment it’s wrong”.
As a character in 3BodyProblem said “If you see something impossible, it’s either an illusion of a scam.”
So, DREMT, is the non-spinner hypothesis an illusion of a scam?
Wrong again, Ent.
Moon does NOT rotate at a constant rate. It does NOT “rotate” at all. It doesn’t even “revolve” at a constant rate. Its linear velocity changes as it orbits.
And, Moon has NO angular momentum. You must prefer astrology over physics.
You don’t understand ANY of this. You don’t even know how passenger jets fly. You’re known as a “brain-dead cult id10t”, posing as a phony intellectual.
“And, Moon has NO angular momentum. You must prefer astrology over physics.
You dont understand ANY of this.”
Yes its true. The twisted made-up fizuks of Clint is difficult to understand.
Even he can’t explain it.
Its principles seem designed only to get negative attention in the form of ridicule.
Again child Nate tr0lls in, having NOTHING.
Puffman keeps proving that cranks have contrarians have little else than the three steps!
Entropic Man, we were up to this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665644
Then you disappeared, only to reappear down here ignoring every word said to you. That’s a recurring theme with you. Again, the moon cannot possibly be rotating about both an external axis, and an internal axis. That would produce movement different to how our moon moves. The only way our moon’s movement could be comprised of two motions is if one of those motions is translation in a loop. You “Spinners” need “orbit without spin” to be translation in a loop, and not rotation about an external axis. OK?
Nothing you have said down here changes those facts. If anything, some “Spinners” would tell you, it only reinforces them.
In your version of reality the man walking around a tree would move in exactly the same way if he were “orbiting without spin”, translating on a loop or rotating once per revolution.
How do you distinguish between them?
As to why I’m down here, one can only go around the “no-spinner merry-go-round before losing the will to live, so I took the day off.
If you want a reply to your earlier bullshit, the rocking back and forth of the Moon in your model is impossible because it requires the Moon’s rotation to accelerate and decelerate twice a month.
If you see it, then it must be an illusion. If part of the motion the non-spinner model describes is an illusion, then probably the whole model is an illusion.
Ent, you don’t know the difference between “illusion” and “reality”.
You actually believe passenger jets fly backward.
See?
Puffman, you still cling to your Skies-Shooting-Down-Cold-Rays fantasy, and you have yet to do the Baseball-Basketball Experiment.
See?
Such childishness is all you’ve got, silly willy. Science-wise, you’ve got NOTHING.
Thanks for proving me right, again.
“In your version of reality the man walking around a tree would move in exactly the same way if he were “orbiting without spin”, translating on a loop or rotating once per revolution.“
That’s wrong, Entropic Man. Study Fig. 2(a) and 2(b) from the following reference:
https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
You should be able to figure out, from that, that rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) is movement like the “moon on the left” (MOTL) in the GIF below, and translation in a loop (with no rotation about an internal axis) is movement like the “moon on the right” (MOTR):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Let me know when you have got that far.
Psst, Puffman –
> This paper discusses two alternative models to the Restricted Three Body Problem (RTBP) for the motion of a massless particle in the Earth-Moon system. These models are the Bicircular Problem (BCP) and the Quasi-Bicircular Problem (QBCP). While the RTBP is autonomous, the BCP and the QBCP are periodically time dependent due to the inclusion of the Sun’s gravitational potential. Each of the two alternative models is suitable for certain regions of the phase space. More concretely, we show that the BCP is more adequate to study the dynamics near the triangular points while the QBCP is more adequate for the dynamics near the collinear points.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fams.2018.00032/full
Here, two models for the price of one.
What do Moon Dragon cranks got, a piece of cardbox clued to the arm of a clock?
That’s NOTHING.
Silly willy found a link that has NOTHING to do with the fact that Moon Is not spinning.
He proves me right, again.
DREMT, as you’ve seen the cult STILL can’t distinguish between “turning” (changing direction) and “spinning”. So in the example of walking around a tree, they erroneously believe the person walking is “spinning”. But, he is only “turning”.
An easy way to tell the difference if for one of the cult id10ts to have a pole vertically inserted through his body’s center of mass. Now, as he walks around the tree he will see the pole (axis) turns with his body. His body is NOT spinning around the axis.
We just need a cult id10t to volunteer….
MOTL is rotating around an internal axis perpendicular to the screen and revolving around the centre of the circle. The two motions are at the same rpm, similar to the ISS pitching 360 degrees per orbit.
MOTR is not rotating, while revolving around the centre of the circle. This is a similar motion to the Hubble telescope.
Gyroscopes and accelerometers on both spacecraft confirm that the ISS is rotating and the Hubble is not.
The Moon is moving in a similar way to the ISS, in a higher orbit. It is therefore moving as MOTL, completing one rotation on its axis per revolution around its orbit.
No, Entropic Man…once again, you’re not listening. So, this is just for anyone who has the capacity to listen, and learn…
Since the Madhavi reference shows us that rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) is movement like the MOTL, and translation in a loop (with no rotation about an internal axis) is movement like the MOTR, we can describe the movement of the MOTL in two ways:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Similarly, we can describe the movement of the MOTR in two ways:
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions.
b) Translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Since the GIF is just an animation, we don’t and can’t know anything about the mechanics behind the motion, and so we can’t choose between the a) and b) descriptions. Either could apply, for each one. For real objects, it’s a different story…
Yes, Clint R…they can’t learn, and I’m probably making it too complicated…but, hopefully, someone out there gets it. We know the "Spinners" who comment here never will, so I don’t really do it for their benefit, anyway.
Ent’s gyroscope would prove him wrong.
Hold a spinning gyroscope in your hand and walk around a tree. The gyroscope would be both orbiting and spinning, just like Earth. Then walk around the tree with the gyroscope stopped. The gyroscope would be orbiting but not spinning, just like Moon.
DREMPTY,
Orbits are not rotations.
Orbits are not rotations.
How many times do I have to say that?
Take it up with the “Spinners” who disagree with you, bob…once the discussion has moved on to orbits, that is.
Graham D. Warner prudently omits to mention who from Team Science hold that an orbit is a rotation.
Antonin Qwerty, Tim S, Entropic Man. All have described an orbit as a rotation about an external axis. bob did himself, once upon a time.
Rotation and revolution are not the same.
https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-rotation-and-revolution.html
Your “rotation around an external axis” is revolution, a separate process from rotation.
It is quite possible for the Moon to be revolving around the Earth-Moon barycentre while simultaneously rotating on its own axis.
See? Entropic Man thinks “revolution” (orbit) is “rotation about an external axis”.
He thinks our moon could be rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis. He’s wrong about that, but I know he cannot be reached through facts or logic, just like the rest of them.
Again, Entropic Man…if you think our moon’s movement is comprised of two motions, that would have to be translation in a loop, plus rotation about an internal axis. Your “revolution” would have to be translation in a loop, and not rotation about an external axis. OK?
Semantic nonsense.
Goodnight DREMT. I’m off to bed.
DREMPTY,
“For real objects, its a different story”
Yes, because the Moon revolves in an ellipse with the Earth at one of the focal points, to be a rotation, the Earth would have to be at the crossing of the major and minor axes of the ellipse.
Not semantics, Entropic Man. Rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) and translation in a loop (with no rotation about an internal axis) are two different motions, not to be confused with one another. The former is like the MOTL, the latter is like the MOTR. Learning is hard for you, huh?
“It is quite possible for the Moon to be revolving around the Earth-Moon barycentre while simultaneously rotating on its own axis.”
Eman is clearly stating one revolution and one rotation. Two different things.
Why are some people dishonestly misrepresenting that as two rotations?
And lets be absolutely clear here. Revolution or orbital motion, means motion of the COM of a body moving around a center.
And for our Moon, that is clearly happening in the orbital plane.
Then we have the Moon’s rotation. And it defined to be a circular motion of all parts of the Moon around an axis. And since that rotation is OBSERVED to be in a plane TILTED at 6.7 degrees to the orbital plane, then the axis of rotation CANNOT be through the Earth center, since that would require the Moon’s COM to also be moving in that SAME TILTED plane, which it is not.
Thus the rotational axis must be through the Moon’s COM.
It should be obvious to anyone even slightly intelligent that this observed motion of the Moon is simply inconsistent with the Non-Spinner model.
That SHOULD indicate the end of the road for the Non-spinners argument.
But that would be too sensible.
Learning is obviously so hard for Entropic Man, that he’s disappeared again.
Peekaboo, DREMT.
You’ve shown that you don’t understand the vocabulary of the physics. You’ve lost.
You have that exactly backwards, Entropic Man. Oh well.
> Semantic nonsense
Exactly, EM.
As far as formal stuff is concerned, Graham D. Warner has little else.
Not semantics, Little Willy. As I tried to explain to Entropic Man, but he was unable to learn, rotation about an external axis (with no rotation about an internal axis) and translation in a loop (with no rotation about an internal axis) are two different motions, not to be confused with one another. The former is like the MOTL, the latter is like the MOTR. That’s just basic kinematics. Far from “not understanding the vocabulary of the physics”, I was actually trying to teach Entropic Man the basics of the argument, but he refused to understand the vocabulary of the physics, or the fundamental difference between the motions. Having won another argument, I’m forced to accept that some people just don’t have the capacity to mentally add two motions together. Oh well.
If they could, they would understand that we can describe the movement of the MOTL in two ways:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
Similarly, we can describe the movement of the MOTR in two ways:
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions. b) Translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Since the GIF is just an animation, we don’t and can’t know anything about the mechanics behind the motion, and so we can’t choose between the a) and b) descriptions. Either could apply, for each one. For real objects, it’s a different story…
> Thats just basic kinematics.
Graham D. Warner omits to say that these are *definitions*, which when formalized belong to semantics. He also omits to mention that these definitions apply to rigid objects, which the Moon-Earth system is not. And he also omits to say that a rotation preserves isometry, which would only work if the orbit was purely circular.
Graham D. Warner omits so many semantic details so often that after a few years it must be concluded that he is lying.
I am not yet talking about the moon, Little Willy. Still just trying to get Entropic Man to understand the motion of objects like the ball on a string.
The standard model Astronomy and Spinners use to describe planetary motion, and the motion of the Moon, has always been a sum of Orbital and Rotational motions.
But some people just dont have the capacity to mentally add two motions together!
So, as I was saying…for real objects, it’s a different story…
…the ball on a string moves as per the MOTL. So, it could be:
a) Rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
To choose between a) and b) depends on what the "base motion" is. Looking at the mechanics behind the motion, the ball is being swung about a central axis on a string, so the "base motion" is chosen for us. It’s "rotation about an external axis". That means a) is the correct answer for the ball on a string.
That means the OPR (Objective Physical Reality) for the ball on a string is that it’s not rotating on its own internal axis. So, that remains true, regardless of how it might appear to be moving wrt certain reference frames. We can also say that the ball on a string is objectively not spinning.
Next, we can move on to how the ball on a string is the "Non-Spinner’s" viable physical model of "orbit without spin"…
Graham D. Warner almost concedes –
> for real objects, its a different story
That puts him in a bind. Either kinematics deal with pure abstractions, like geometry. Or he’s stuck in a loop of silly semantic games.
Astute readers will recall that kinematics has been invented expressly to account for celestial objects…
The only person playing silly semantic games is Little Willy, as we all know. I’m just trying to make sense of the world around me as best I can.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting:
https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Semantics
Five years and he still can’t get his mind around the simplest of notions.
No gaslighting here. If two motions are different, they’re different. That’s not "semantics". What you call those two motions might be "semantics", but that’s kind of irrelevant to my overall point. The two motions (MOTL and MOTR) are fundamentally different. They’re different no matter what reference frame you choose, or what words you use to describe them. Adding "spin", at different rates, and in different directions, to either of those two motions, produces different results.
So, where was I?
Oh yes, the "Non-Spinners" viable physical model of "orbit without spin" is the ball on a string. Now, let’s take a look at one of the "Spinners" suggested models, the yo-yo with a frictionless axle. Running through the same process as before, the yo-yo with a frictionless axle is moving like the MOTR, so it could be described as:
a) Rotating about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions.
b) Translating in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
To choose between a) and b) depends on what the "base motion" is. Looking at the mechanics behind the motion, the yo-yo is being swung about a central axis on a string, so the "base motion" is chosen for us. It’s "rotation about an external axis". That means a) is the correct answer for the yo-yo with a frictionless axle.
That means the OPR (Objective Physical Reality) for the yo-yo with a frictionless axle is that it is rotating on its own internal axis. So, that remains true, regardless of how it might appear to be moving wrt certain reference frames. We can also say that the yo-yo with a frictionless axle is objectively spinning.
So, it fails at being a model of "orbit without spin".
“Looking at the mechanics behind the motion, the yo-yo is being swung about a central axis on a string, so the “base motion” is chosen for us. Its “rotation about an external axis”.
The mechanics of the the yo-yo and BOS are different, one is not constrained in its rotation, the other is constrained to rotate with the string, yet somehow, they end up with the same ‘base motion’.
Thus the ‘base motion’ is revealed to be arbitrary.
DREMT 5:03 pm means the OPR (Objective Physical Reality) for Earth’s Moon with a frictionless axle is that it is rotating on its own internal axis. So, that remains true, regardless of how it might appear to be moving wrt certain reference frames. We can also say that Earth’s Moon with a frictionless axle is objectively spinning.
So, it fails at being a model of “orbit without spin”.
Of course, not everyone’s going to be capable of understanding, but it’s pretty straightforward for any honest, rational people. Another type of model the "Spinners" often propose involves an XY plotter. Now, an XY plotter does translate the pen, so "translation in a circle" will be the "base motion" for that model. So, is it a viable physical model of "orbit without spin"? Of course not! There’s nothing with the XY plotter to represent gravity. That’s why that model fails.
You’ll find that if you’re capable of thinking things through for yourself, that just about everything you can think of as an example of "orbit without spin" for the "Spinners" ultimately falls into one of those two categories – either it’s objectively spinning, or it has nothing to represent gravity.
Graham D. Warner is trying to make sense of the world around me as best he can by not yet talking about the Moon.
Pure genius.
We’re onto the moon now, Little Willy. As soon as "orbit without spin" is mentioned, you know we’re talking about orbiting objects. Try to keep up.
I assume that astute readers are able to join the dots from where I’d got up to, to understanding that "orbit without spin" must be movement like the MOTL.
With yet another victory under my belt, I guess I’d better call it a day.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Here’s where he bridges his motte-and-bailey:
It’s really not hard to see that he’s just playing semantic games.
That quote was absolutely correct, and many “Spinners” would agree.
“Theres nothing with the XY plotter to represent gravity. Thats why that model fails.”
The idea is to produce a motion, not a force.
In any case the string in BOS does not mimic gravity, since gravity does not constrain the distance or orientation of objects the way the string does.
No matter the facts, non-spinners find a way to spin it to match their narrative.
Needless to say, some will resist understanding until their dying day. Oh well, not my problem.
Needless to say that when Graham D. Warner gets caught trying to segregate formal and material modes for his silly Motte-and-Bailey, he will continue to gaslight.
Complete gibberish from one of the worst trolls on the internet.
Graham D. Warner does not always gaslight, but when he does sometimes he displays his ignorance on the most basic stuff:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095829131
None of what you say about me is ever correct.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
His Motte is his pet GIF, his Bailey is his claim that this proves something about the Moon.
The Motte is pure formalism, a mere definition he keeps misapplying because the Earth-Moon system isn’t an object.
The Bailey is his usual gibberish centered around Objective Reality, balls on string, and orbits without spin, which is refuted by the fact that all celestial objects known to manking are spinning.
Moon Dragon cranks soldier on, come what may.
Little Willy wants to have his cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, he challenges me if I say the moon can’t be rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis. On the other hand, he frequently argues that the moon cannot be described as rotating about an external axis, because the orbit is elliptical and not circular! So he wants to both argue that the moon can be described as rotating about an external axis, and that it can’t be!
It’s just because he will say anything to contradict anything I say, no matter what. As he shows with every comment.
DR EMPTY,
I’m afraid willie has you
“On the one hand, he challenges me if I say the moon cant be rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis. On the other hand, he frequently argues that the moon cannot be described as rotating about an external axis, because the orbit is elliptical and not circular!”
He says the Moon can’t be rotating around an external axis both times.
No, bob. Little Willy has argued that the moon can be described as rotating about an external axis and an internal axis at the same time. Then, he has argued that the moon cannot be described as rotating about an external axis because the orbit is elliptical and not circular. So, he has directly contradicted himself. Of course, you will try to defend him.
DREMPTY,
Will you agree that the Moon is not rotating around an external axis?
I agree that Little Willy has contradicted himself, that you’re trying to change the subject from that, that Little Willy is one of the worst tr0lls on the internet, and that you are an enabler.
DR EMPTY,
He made two different arguments that both stated that orbits are not rotations.
And I didn’t change the topic, you have moved on to discussing the orbit and rotation of the Moon.
Which we can argue is not an external rotation with an internal rotation.
Or we can argue that the orbit is a translation with the Moon rotating on an internal axis.
And we can argue both statements are true and not contradictory.
Little Willy completely contradicted himself.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting. He’s also trying to have it both ways with his pet GIF and the CSA Truther’s gimmick, which has nothing to do with any objective reality.
In reality, the pet GIF explains why the CSA Truther runs a con with his gimmick:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
And so Bob wins another argument with him.
Little Willy completely contradicted himself, and he and bob are now desperate to try and pretend that did not happen.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting, caught between the rock of a formalism he misrepresents and the hard place of a reality in which every celestial objects known to mankind spin.
Really desperate.
(ESTR) Every celestial objects known to mankind spin.
(VLAD) Really desperate.
Really, really desperate.
Desperate DR EMPTY,
Please stop drooling.
They really can’t stand to be caught out.
Tired of the lunatics endlessly debating the moon’s motion?
Try reading facts such as:
“The May 2023-Apr 2024 period (12 months) was the warmest May-Apr period on record for both the Contiguous U.S. and for Canada individually. In Canada, a remarkable 62% of the country had the #1 ranked May-Apr period.”
You will not be disappointed (unless you are a cooker).
Nice cherry picking.
Amazing what you do with statistics. As Mark Twain said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics’.
Perhaps, DMT, but have you seen Walter R. Hogle’s rediscovery of teh Goddard’s clippings?
Examining history is not cherry picking.
[WALTER R. HOGLE, RESPONDING TO THE FACT THAT CONUS HAD THE WARMEST MAY-APR PERIOD ON RECORD] Nice cherry picking.
[ALSO WALTER R. HOGLE] Here is some random newsie I won’t tell you comes from teh Goddard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re an idiot.
Willard is a monkey.
DMT,
Obviously not nearly as hot as when the surface was molten; or at any time hotter than the present.
The surface has cooled to its present temperature. If you believe otherwise, you might suggest a reason.
I’ll have a bit of a snigger while I wait.
Suggest away.
Relevance? None.
Maybe next you’ll tell us your favorite Taylor Swift song.
We breathlessly await.
christos…”It is a mistaken thing to do visualising the EM energy /matter interaction process.
Molecules are not balls, and photons are not balls either.
The EM energy is a wave. Molecules is the matter. What they do is to interact they do not collide as some billiard balls do”.
***
Most scientists don’t understand the interaction, even some trained in quantum theory. That’s because they learn quantum theory from a purely mathematical perspective hence are unable to relate to the protons and electrons that are the basis of quantum theory.
Quantum theory is also the basis of electronics theory and several other disciplines like chemistry, semiconductors, etc. In those disciplines, mathematics is not enough, in fact, it is irrelevant once the theory is learned. It is far more helpful to visualize the interaction of the electrons and protons.
I was lucky enough to approach the theory fro a perspective of electrons and their relationship to EM. I realized early that electrons have charges and that the charges produce an electric field. When the electron moves with its electric field, a magnetic field is produced. If the electrons move back and forth rapidly in a conductor (alternating current) an electromagnetic field is produced that can radiate long distances.
Therefore, in my mind, there is a solid foundation for the direct relationship between electrons, both those bound to atoms and those free to move in a conductor, to electromagnetic energy. Even at that, it was not till more recently that I got right into Bohr’s theory and realized how electrons produce EM, and how EM can affect electrons, both by electrons absorbing it in atoms and electrons being diverted by it in conductors.
That is basically why I cannot buy into the theory of photons. Electrons and protons are particles with mass and they both carry charges. A photon is a theory created to give the illusion of light as particles similar to electrons and protons. Electrons and protons, having mass, can have momentum but it’s plain silly to me to claim that a photon, with no mass, can have momentum.
Photons cannot collide with molecules because photon have no mass. Even molecules don’t collide with other molecules as two masses would collide. That’s because molecules are made of atoms and each atom has electrons orbiting it, therefore there is a negative field around each atom. It is unlikely that the solid part of the atoms would collide since that would displace the electrons and cause the atom to disintegrate.
I don’t think atoms or molecules get any closer to each other than the electron layer. The repelling charges of the electrons layers on each atom would repel the atoms/molecules before they got close enough to do damage.
The theories I read about this, from scientists, is often too immature to consider. I would venture that most scientists simply don’t understand basic quantum theory or basic electrostatic theory.
Gordon,
Feynman wrote “The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She isabsurd”
If it fully agrees with experiment, that’s good enough for me.
Gordon, look up the photoelectric effect. Einstein’s explanation won him a Nobel prize.
And Feynman won’t make any sense unless you consider photons the carriers of electromagnetic force between electrons.
Craig T,
“And Feynman wont make any sense unless you consider photons the carriers of electromagnetic force between electrons.”
Appealing to your own vast knowledge of QED, are you?
Feynman wrote –
“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics”, which makes sense to me, without having to consider photons the carriers of electromagnetic force between electrons. Now is the time for you to say that you really meant to say something else – equally idiotic to what you said before.
It makes no difference – you still can’t describe the GHE, because you are an ignorant fanatical GHE cultist, who refuses to accept that the GHE doesn’t exist – as evidenced by the fact that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Go on, tell me what Feynman said about being able to predict a future state of the atmosphere! Don’t forget to consider photons the carriers of electromagnetic force between electrons. You nitwit, that’s what happens when you try to look clever.
If you are not a fool, you are doing your best to look like one.
“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics, which makes sense to me, without having to consider photons the carriers of electromagnetic force between electrons. ”
which Feynman certainly did consider in QED.
Obviously Swenson never actually learned about Feynman’s work on QED.
Gordon,
“I dont think atoms or molecules get any closer to each other than the electron layer.”
You might want to look up Ernest Rutherford’s famous experiment.
You might want to look up Ernest Rutherfords famous experiment yourself.
What Swenson,
Rutherford showed that nuclei can collide with nuclei.
High energy particles can collide with nuclei
definition of high-energy particle:
an atomic or subatomic particle with energy greater than 100 MeV
Used in sentence: “She studied cosmic rays high-energy particles flying all over the universe at approaching the speed of light.”
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/high-energy-particle
“Rutherford showed that nuclei can collide with nuclei.”
Not quite molecules or atoms colliding with each other, then.
Cant you find anything to support your babbling?
Try the Ideal Gas Law then, it’s based on atoms colliding with each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Norman wakes up from a nap in a confused state of mind…
“The atmosphere returns IR to the surface which reduces the amount of HEAT the surface will lose as the surface absorbs the IR reducing the rate of internal heat loss. This allows the solar input to achieve a higher surface temperature”.
***
The atmosphere generally ranges in temperature from being in thermal equilibrium with the surface to being colder. The 2nd law states that heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body. How, exactly, does IR in colder space create heat in the surface?
Besides, GHGs only absorb about 7% of surface radiation. That means 93% of the heat lost at the surface via radiation has to be made up. How does 7% make up that 93% loss?
That 7% depends on all of the radiation captured by GHGs being returned but we know most of it is radiated in a direction other than the surface. So, how does 3% of the original radiation make up for the 93%?
Gordon Robertson
where do you pull the 7% from. You just made that up and try to pass it off as some sort of verified fact. Why do you think this gives your posts credibility?
The actual value is about 90% of the IR emitted by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere. I guess if you want to make up your own facts to attempt to win an argument you are free to do so. It is a strange way of winning an argument or debate, but each to his own I guess.
“GHGs only absorb about 7% of surface radiation.”
That’s 7% more than DREMT, Clint or Swenson would admit.
Those sound like numbers from an atmospheric energy budget. Can you share your source and/or list the rest of the values? What percent of incoming solar energy do you show as reaching the Earth?
Nutty Norman,
You wrote –
“The actual value is about 90% of the IR emitted by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere.”
Irrelevant and pointless. The Earth has cooled. The surface cools each night, losing all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
You can’t describe the GHE because it doesn’t exist.
“That’s 7% more than DREMT, Clint or Swenson would admit.”
Incorrect, Kreg. GHGs absorb (and emit) radiation from the surface. In all the time I’ve been commenting here, I’ve never once suggested otherwise.
Craig T,
You ask –
“What percent of incoming solar energy do you show as reaching the Earth?”
Where? What percentage would you believe? Are you totally incompetent? Cant you find an authority to tell you?
At night, zero solar energy reaches the surface. I’m sure you can find surface measurements of solar irradiance, but that won’t help you to describe the mythical GHE, will it?
You do ask some ridiculous gotchas, don’t you?
Mike Flynn,
You play dumb again –
> Where?
On the Earth, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, you donkey – where on Earth? The unlit side? The poles in winter? Normal to the sun in a cloudless arid desert?
No wonder you describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
I’m Mike Flynn, and I have pointed out previously pointed out that slower cooling is not heating. What is your pathetically pointless GHE supposed to do? Can’t say? Won’t say? People will think you are just another ignorant, fanatical GHE cultist, lashing out because nobody wants to share your fantasies.
Mike Flynn,
From the Sun, the Earth is just a dot.
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Willard, you donkey where on Earth? The unlit side? The poles in winter? Normal to the sun in a cloudless arid desert?
No wonder you describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
I’m Mike Flynn, and I have pointed out previously pointed out that slower cooling is not heating. What is your pathetically pointless GHE supposed to do? Can’t say? Won’t say? People will think you are just another ignorant, fanatical GHE cultist, lashing out because nobody wants to share your fantasies.
“Irrelevant and pointless. The Earth has cooled. The surface cools each night, losing all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earths internal heat.”
Again, Swenson declares something demonstrably FALSE. The Earth is currently in a warming period over the last century. And before that it warmed a great deal from the peak of the glaciation 20,000 years ago.
So obviously the Earth goes through periods where the Earth does not lose ‘all the heat of the day’ every night.
Undoubtedly Swenson will keep shamelessly repeating this erroneous idea.
Why? Nobody knows.
Did Norman really say –
“HEAT the surface will lose as the surface absorbs the IR reducing the rate of internal heat loss. This allows the solar input to achieve a higher surface temperature”.
This is why the Earth is cooler now than it was four and a half billion years ago?
And, of course, why surface temperatures due to the Sun vary between about -90 C and +90 C, not to mention why the surface loses all the heat of the day e@ch night!
He’s not attached to reality, is he?
I suppose he can’t bring himself to describe the GHE – because sane people would laugh at him.
What a strange fanatical GHE cultist he is.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “How, exactly, does IR in colder space create heat in the surface?”
It doesn’t. It reduces the rate of heat loss. It is like insulation.
Insulation does not add any heat to your home in winter. None at all. But it will reduce the RATE of heat loss of your home to the cold environment allowing your heating unit to maintain a warmer more comfortable temperature than your house would be with no insulation.
Nutty Norman,
“It doesnt. It reduces the rate of heat loss. It is like insulation.”
Heat loss means cooling – falling temperature. Burbling about a heating unit is pointless. The Earth has cooled. No wonder you don’t want to talk about the GHE.
You can bang on about greenhouses, hot cars, overcoats – whatever you like. You still can’t describe the GHE – because it doesn’t exist!
If you don’t agree, just describe it!
> If you dont agree, just describe it!
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Has anyone ever built a house with too much insulation- or a dangerous amount of insulation.
We in an Ice Age. More insulation, please.
“Step 2 Sammich Request.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Insulation works because closed air is a very poor conductor of heat. It even works in a wool sweater.
Which is why it is impossible to insulate spacecrafts in space mission.
Parker Solar Probe has flown dozen times “into the sun”- and spacecraft apparently can’t insulate.
A problem with satellite is they don’t have uniform temperature or parts of them over heat. Satellite can get a lot solar energy, that electrical power does something which will create heat, therefore to make satellite cool or have a more uniform temperature, they can plumbing which can evaporationally cool and/or can convectively.
Or have heat pipe:
— What are the heat pipes used in space?
Heat Pipes in Space: CCHPs used at the System-Level …
CCHPs are well known to the experienced Satellite Designer, and the term generally refers to the use of aluminum-ammonia heat pipes in satellites to transfer heat from the electronics payloads to radiator panels.–
> and spacecraft apparently can’t insulate.
Is there air in space, gb?
If there is and insulation is possible, the revise ren’s conception of isolation!
Willard,
No, no insulation known will prevent a spacecraft burning up if it gets too close to the Sun.
You try to appear intelligent by writing “Is there air in space, gb?”, but all you do is look like a patronising idiot.
Either you dont know the answer to your question, which makes you ignorant, or you do know, and are trying to make somebody look stupid. Either way, you lose, don’t you?
I am Mike Flynn, and your stupid description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” is about as useless a description of the GHE as is possible.
You could always link to a previous comment of mine, wher I point out that cooling is not heating, if that is what you are slyly trying to imply, without actually saying so. You still come out looking like an idiot.
Got any more asinine gotchas to fire off?
Mike Flynn,
You deny another irrelevancy –
> No, no insulation known will prevent a spacecraft burning up if it gets too close to the Sun.
Does that mean you believe insulation can work where there’s no air?
That would spell doom on Ren’s conception of insulation, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Whining Wee Willy,
Ooooooh! A gotcha!
You wrote –
“Does that mean you believe insulation can work where theres no air?”
Why do you ask? Do my beliefs weigh heavily on your mind?
I believe only an idiot would describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, as you did, but you might believe differently – because you are an idiot.
Feel free to demonstrate that you have a better description of the GHE.
[yes, he’s not the brightest bulb in the box, is he]
Mike Flynn,
You assert –
> A gotcha
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Whining Wee Willy,
Ooooooh! A gotcha!
You wrote
“Does that mean you believe insulation can work where theres no air?”
Why do you ask? Do my beliefs weigh heavily on your mind?
I believe only an idiot would describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” , as you did, but you might believe differently because you are an idiot.
Feel free to demonstrate that you have a better description of the GHE.
[yes, he’s not the brightest bulb in the box, is he]
Mike Flynn,
You express admiration –
> Ohhhh
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Gordon, you defy basic physics. Molecules do not stop emitting radiant energy just because they are also receiving it from some source. Further, molecules do not stop receiving radiant energy because they are at a higher temperature than the source. You just failed your final exam, which in your case, probably makes you proud.
Tim S,
You still can’t describe the GHE, can you?
How silly are you trying to look – “You just failed your final exam . . . “.
Here’s an exam question that no fanatical GHE cultist has ever answered successfully – “Describe the GHE.”
You fail, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
tim…
1)molecules don’t radiate EM per se, electrons in atoms do. Molecules have no separate mechanism for radiating and absorbing EM.
2)electrons do stop absorbing EM if the frequency of the EM does not resonate with their angular frequency. They are very selective little critters and absorb only 1 frequency per orbital energy level. They also emit only one frequency.
The temperature of colder masses radiate EM that has a frequency too low to be absorbed by electrons in a hotter mass.
Gordon Robertson
I have attempted to correct your incorrect science. It is most difficult task.
Here you claim:
“1)molecules dont radiate EM per se, electrons in atoms do. Molecules have no separate mechanism for radiating and absorbing EM.”
Yes they do. It is having permanent charged dipoles that vibrate. A vibrating electric charge will produce EM. This is what produces most EMR in the IR band. It has been experimentally validated by the whole science of IR spectroscopy where molecules are of unknown compounds can be identified by the IR spectrum they produce. Science has built up a library of IR spectrum to aid in the identification process.
The frequency of the vibrating dipole of different molecules matches the frequency of IR emitted or absorbed by the molecule.
When the IR is absorbed by the molecule the amplitude of the vibrating dipoles increase. When an IR photon is emitted the amplitude of the vibrating dipole decreases. The energy is stored in the distance the dipoles vibrate. This is solid verified science.
I have linked you to it several times in the past.
https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/spectrpy/infrared/infrared.htm
For the second time today, I have to remind people that photons don’t carry the information of the temperature of the body that emits them.
3 pieces of information are carried by photons, their energy, that’s one, and their direction, that’s the other two.
bob…photons do carry the required information re emission temperature in their frequency/wavelength. There is a direct correlation between the frequency of the EM and the emitting surface temperature.
That’s how IR thermometers work. They detect the frequency of IR radiation and correlate it to a temperature worked out in a lab and stored in thermometer’s memory.
norman…”Yes they do. It is having permanent charged dipoles that vibrate. A vibrating electric charge will produce EM. This is what produces most EMR in the IR band”.
***
Norman, how do I get it through the immense density of your brain barrier that electric charge comes from orbiting electrons? The dipoles you mention are formed by electron orbitals that serve as the bonds between the central carbon atom ad the two associated oxygen atoms.
The dipole is due to the difference in electronegativity between the O-atoms and the C-atom. Electronegativity is the ability of an atom to attract electrons and because the O-atom is more electronegative, the bonding electrons tend to gather at the O-end of the bond. That makes the O-end more negative than the C-end, hence the dipole.
O=====C=====O
The dashed lines represent the double electron bond.
When that electron bond changes length, or angle with the common axis through the atoms, that is vibration. Ergo, the vibration is a vibration of electron bonds, hence the varying charge, which only the electron possesses.
Gordon,
An IR thermometer only gives a reading after abzorbing a multitude of photons. Not from the information from one photon.
Gordon, what about when the CO2 molecule looks like this
O O
C
Like when it’s not linear because its vibrating.
Waffling Bobby,
You wrote –
“An IR thermometer only gives a reading after abzorbing a multitude of photons. Not from the information from one photon.”
Well, that’s shattering news. I suspect that is old information Bobby, even if it’s wrong. Go on, ask me why it’s wrong. You won’t will you?
I much prefer your description of the GHE –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
That pretty much sums up your intellectual level, doesn’t it?
Carry on.
Mikey Flynn,
You want me to calculate the energy in one photon of IR light?
I just posted that a few days ago.
You think you can buy or build an IR thermometer that could detect that?
“Go on, ask me why its wrong.”
I am asking, but I am sure you won’t be able to do that.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“You want me to calculate the energy in one photon of IR light?”
No, why would I?
And then you wrote –
“You think you can buy or build an IR thermometer that could detect that?”
Of course a single photon can be detected. Do you imagine otherwise?
“I am asking, but I am sure you wont be able to do that.” Of course I can. First, admit you don’t know the answer yourself, then demonstrate your efforts to find out for yourself.
Then I will tell you. I must admit that I misjudged your willingness to accept my authority, and admit your ignorance. Good for you! You’re learning.
Swenson,
Yes, one photon can be detected, but we are talking about the response of an IR thermometer to one photon of infrared light.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
So there’s been no warming since 1988 er I mean 1998 er I mean 2017 er I mean 2024? It’s just cycles right?
Circulation in the tropopause (direction of jet currents) indicates an influx of Arctic air into the eastern US and eastern Europe on May 12.
https://i.ibb.co/hfxTPC8/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
testing…
norman…fibreglass (or r-rated) insulation has zero effect against heat loss by radiation. You need a reflective metallic foil to do that. Most homes till recently incor.porated nothing to reduce heat loss by radiation and the fibreglass insulation worked fine.
GHGs in the atmosphere have zero effect on heat loss at the surface. The heat is lost at the instant the radiation is emitted, so trapping IR later has no effect on the heat loss. All that can effect the rate of heat loss is the temperature differential between the air and the surface and that is controhled by the majority gases N2 and O2.
On planets with an atmosphere, the tropopause is at 100 hPa. Below this value, the air is very dilute and there the EM radiation is decided. The denser the atmosphere, the more particle collisions. Heat loss depends on the density of the troposphere. It also depends, of course, on the rotational speed of the planet, which determines the amount of energy loss at night.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2021.png
ren…not sure that I understand your post.
We are talking about surface heat loss. There are three mechanisms involved: conduction, convection, and radiation. According to Shula, conduction/convection is 260 times more effective at removing heat from the surface.
Shula has a Masters degree in theoretical physics and he explains the difference in heat dissipation as the vast number of air molecules available to individually accept heat from the surface. There are something like 10^27 molecules per square surface metre. Naturally, when a molecule receives heat from the surface, it gains energy and rises.
Heat loss would be increased by a more dense atmosphere since there would be more molecules per square metre absorbing heat. However, radiation at terrestrial temperatures is 260 times less effective at dissipating heat. NOAA believes the opposite is true and they are misinformed. The energy budget theory is clearly wrong since it weights radiation as being 95% more effective than conduction/convection at dissipating heat.
The temperature zones in your diagram are related to conduction/convection, not EM radiation. The radiation intensity will be related to the temperature of the surface, although the T^4 relationship of S-B does not apply at terrestrial temperatures. Nevertheless, there is a relationship.
The surface temperature will be affected by the atmosphere’s temperature. Normally, it would be in thermal equilibrium with the surface and we know that heat cannot be transferred at equilibrium. However, heated air rises and is replaced by cooler air and that disturbs the equilibrium temporarily till that cooler air is heated and rises.
It would seem then that the rate of heat dissipation depends on the rate at which cooler air from above is warmed and rises. That would depend on how cold or warm the air is from above.
— Gordon Robertson says:
May 8, 2024 at 4:08 PM
rennot sure that I understand your post.
We are talking about surface heat loss. There are three mechanisms involved: conduction, convection, and radiation. According to Shula, conduction/convection is 260 times more effective at removing heat from the surface.–
In order to have a high ground temperature. Or to try to cook eggs on the sidewalk, you need a high air temperature.
Or ground surface temperature of 70 C is possible on land, but not if air surface temperature is cooler, like say 30 C. Or to get 70 C, need air temperature of about 40 C.
Ocean surface air temperature rarely get above 30 C.
So if got high air temperature, you get less convective heat loss, which allows a higher ground temperature. Or lower the air temperature, the higher convectional/evaporative heat loss, and less radiative heat loss.
Since average global air is 15 C, radiatant heat is a small factor.
Or as I say a lot ocean warms, land cools.
The most important thing for life is oxygen in the stratosphere, which absorbs the sun’s deadly UV radiation. Earth’s magnetic field protects against galactic and solar protons.
Therefore, we should focus on the production of oxygen through photosynthesis and not worry about the increase in CO2 by an average of a few molecules.
Burning fossil fuels takes oxygen out of the atmosphere.
Burning is the process of turning O2 into CO2. That CO2 then becomes food for plants to then use the “C” to make plant parts, while returning the O2 to the atmosphere.
The more CO2, the more plants, the more O2.
From the Global Climate Cult subdivision in Cambridge Massachusetts.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-will-future-warming-and-co2-emissions-affect-oxygen-concentrations#:~:text=Oxygen%20levels%20are%20declining%20due%20to%20the%20burning,ecosystems%20are%20much%20more%20impacted%2C%20especially%20aquatic%20ones.
Clint takes his foot out of his mouth, and puts the other one in.
Less than .03 % of it.
Oh more than that as it also makes water of the O2, and burning Methane makes a lot more water.
bob, from your cult link: “As the planet gets hotter due to increased CO2 concentrations…”
Notice they can’t describe how CO2 can warm the planet. It’s just a belief. A cult belief.
That ain’t science.
Some say more than 80% [how much more?] of it warms our cold 3.5 C ocean.
Records indicate over 100 years ago it was hottest.
But global warming is all about creating a more uniform global surface air temperature. Which is thought to have an average of 15 C.
And obviously, 15 C air temperature is cold.
Puffman,
From Bob’s link –
> When we burn fossil fuels, carbon (C) combines with oxygen molecules (O2) to make carbon dioxide (CO2), which is a greenhouse gas that is the main contributor to climate change.
Aren’t you supposed to be a better sock puppet than Mike Flynn?
Clint,
Are you aware of the difference between can’t and didn’t.
“Notice they cant describe how CO2 can warm the planet. Its just a belief. A cult belief.”
Don’t call MIT a cult, because you couldn’t get in.
Keep proving me right, silly willy.
I can take it.
More from MIT,
Possibly down to Clints level of education.
https://climate.mit.edu/what-we-know-about-climate-change
bob…MIT holds diametrically oppose views on climate. The one you posted is obviously from the Kerry Emmanuel side of MIT, a load of twisted alarmist whiners. Richard Lindzen leads the truthful side and he is far more scientific than any of the drivel output by Emmanuel.
Once again, the MIT nonsense is nothing more than invalid, unsupportable beliefs.
The same claims could be made about the number of ice cream stores since 1850 — hockey schtick and all….
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
Puffman keeps working for his contrarian hat trick!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Step 3 Saying Stuff
Puffman keeps working for his contrarian hat trick!”
I’m Mike Flynn (whose authority you repeatedly appeal to), and I say you are mentally unbalanced.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for finally admitting that you’re now using a silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
Clint,
“The same claims could be made about the number of ice cream stores since 1850 hockey schtick and all.”
That’s correlation without causation.
With CO2 and the hockey stick, we have correlation and causation.
I just posted the mechanism.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“Thank you for finally admitting that youre now using a silly sock puppet.”
No, I am Mike Flynn – or Swenson or Napoleon – whichever allows you to sleep soundly. I’ll respond to anything I feel like.
And theres nothing you can do about it, is there?
So sad, you’ll have to go back to trying to convince people that the description of the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”. Is that supposed to cause AGW?
Donkey.
Gordan said “Richard Lindzen leads the truthful side and he is far more scientific than any of the drivel output by Emmanuel.”
Lindzen (like Spencer) truthfully believes that the GHE reduces outgoing longwave radiation and warms the planet.
“The surface temperature response to increased CO2 involves important implicit contributions from the dynamics. The basic mechanism underlying the clear-sky greenhouse effect is that increasing absorber amounts changes the longwave optical properties of the atmosphere without changing the top of the atmosphere longwave or shortwave net radiative fluxes. The increased absorber amount causes the OLR to originate from a higher-tropospheric layer. Since the tropospheric temperature
decreases with height, raising the emission level would cause reduced OLR if the temperature did not change. The temperature of the emitting layer must then rise to preserve the radiative balance.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/56/11/1520-0469_1999_056_1649_twvacs_2.0.co_2.xml
Craig T,
What a pathetic attempt at appealing to authority.
You wrote –
“Lindzen (like Spencer) truthfully believes that the GHE reduces outgoing longwave radiation and warms the planet.”
There’s a minor problem of fact to deal with. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, not warmed.
Maybe that’s why neither of your two authorities has managed to provide GHE description which can quote. I truthfully believe you are a deranged GHE cultist.
Must be true, then?
Mike Flynn,
That factoid of yours is irrelevant.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
We have 100% confidence that sea level is rising because humans are heating the planet. And higher sea levels mean today’s [tropical cyclones] do more damage than an identical tropical cyclone in a cooler climate because the storm surge is riding on a higher sea level.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/climate-change-is-making-hurricanes-09e
REAL scientists have 100% confidence you can’t show how humans are “heating the planet”.
Step 1 and 2 – Pure Denial and Sammich Request
Well done, silly sock puppet!
The cult child responds with cult childishness, proving me right again.
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
And Puffman completes the hat trick!
Come on, Wee Willy.
“Step 3 Saying Stuff
And Puffman completes the hat trick!”
Is that the best you can do? Really? Even a novice troll has more imagination than that!
I’ve made it easy for you by agreeing that I’m Mike Flynn, so you can continuously appeal to my authority, and I can tell you that there is no GHE.
It’s pretty sad when even your authority Mike Flynn (me) says that you’re an idiot, isn’t it?
Oh dear, what will you do now?
[no foul humouring madman, is it]
Mike Flynn,
You worry –
> Is that the best you can do?
No, it’s not.
Do Sky Dragon cranks deserve my best?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Come on, Wee Willy.
“Step 3 Saying Stuff
And Puffman completes the hat trick!”
Is that the best you can do? Really? Even a novice troll has more imagination than that!
You wrote “Do Sky Dragon cranks deserve my best?”. You are mindlessly gibbbering again, aren’t you? Your best is just an ineffectual as the rest of you. Completely inept and impotent. Sad, but true.
I’ve made it easy for you by agreeing that Im Mike Flynn, so you can continuously appeal to my authority, and I can tell you that there is no GHE.
Its pretty sad when even your authority Mike Flynn (me) says that youre an idiot, isnt it?
Oh dear, what will you do now?
[no foul humouring madman, is it]
Mike Flynn,
You say –
> I am Mike Flynn.
You sure are, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Come on, Wee Willy.
“Step 3 Saying Stuff
And Puffman completes the hat trick!”
Is that the best you can do? Really? Even a novice troll has more imagination than that!
You wrote “Do Sky Dragon cranks deserve my best?” You are mindlessly gibbbering again, arent you? Your best is just an ineffectual as the rest of you. Completely inept and impotent. Sad, but true.
I’ve made it easy for you by agreeing that Im Mike Flynn, so you can continuously appeal to my authority, and I can tell you that there is no GHE.
Its pretty sad when even your authority Mike Flynn (me) says that youre an idiot, isnt it?
Oh dear, what will you do now?
At least you are agreeing with me. Or are you going to accuse me of lying about using the synonym Mike Flynn? You never know, I might be!
[no foul humouring madman, is it]
Mike Flynn,
You finally concede
> I am Mike Flynn.
You sure are, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Glad to see that you agree with me.
Freudian slip?
100% confidence is not proof, it is sheer speculation by ijits, as reported by a major ijit.
Mr. Asshat is 100% asshat, I’m 150% sure of that!
Weepy Wee Willy,
I’m Mike Flynn, and you are deranged.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Worried Wee Willy,
Im Mike Flynn, and you are deranged.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
> Im
“Im”?
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Worried Wee Willy,
I’m Mike Flynn, and you are deranged.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You finally admit –
> I’m Mike Flynn.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Worried Wee Willy,
Im Mike Flynn, and you are deranged.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You’re in my thread.
Silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
In the following days, a powerful patch of Arctic air over Russia, with ground frosts.
https://i.ibb.co/zQjCy5k/ventusky-temperature-500hpa-20240509t1500.jpg
Gordon,
“Photons cannot collide with molecules because photon have no mass. Even molecules dont collide with other molecules as two masses would collide. Thats because molecules are made of atoms and each atom has electrons orbiting it, therefore there is a negative field around each atom. It is unlikely that the solid part of the atoms would collide since that would displace the electrons and cause the atom to disintegrate.”
–
Thank you, Gordon. I think photon is yet another abstraction which “helps visualizing” the complex physical phenomena.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Mark Twain….what gets us into trouble is not what we dont know, its what we know for sure that just aint so.
Like climate change denial.
EM,
Are you mad? Name someone who denies that the climate changes.
Next thing you’ll be running around waving a placard saying “Stop Climate Change!”.
Whos denying what? You’re denying the reality that climate is ever-changing. Your attempts to link the lack of a GHE to the Holocaust (Holocaust “denial”, and Hansen’s “trains of death)) just make you look like a fanatical GHE cultist – who csn’t even describe the GHE!
You are just gullible and ignorant, not necessarily stupid.
Accept reality. The Earth has cooled.
Mike Flynn,
You play your silly semantic games again –
> Name someone who denies that the climate changes.
“Climate change denial” refers to denial of the A, the G, or the W part of AGW.
Since you deny the greenhouse effect, you go above and beyond that.
That makes you a crank.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, you dimwitted clod, you wrote –
“Climate change denial refers to denial of the A, the G, or the W part of AGW.
Since you deny the greenhouse effect, you go above and beyond that.
That makes you a crank.”
Are you trying to say that “climate change denial” has nothing to do with climate? You must be insane if so! Maybe you could name someone who denies “the A, the G, or the W part of AGW.”?
Of course you can’t, because you’re an idiot.
There is no greenhouse effect, you donkey. You claim the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”. That relates to “the A, the G, or the W part of AGW.” precisely how? Not at all?
[laughing at thoroughly confused cultist]
Mike Flynn,
Are you trying to suggest that you don’t know that AGW is related to climate change?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Wee Willy Wanker,
“Are you trying to suggest that you dont know that AGW is related to climate change?”
I’m not suggesting that at all. Are you? AGW (that is, man-made heat) will affect temperatures of thermometers exposed to such heat.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather, so that if meteorological thermometers respond to man-made heat, the variations will affect the derived statistics.
You have things back to front, by the look of things, but given your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, any connection between AGW and the mythical GHE, is purely in your imagination.
Maybe you could try to describe the GHE in a way that involves increasing temperatures, perhaps?
Only joking – you can’t, can you?
Mike Flynn,
You go for Step 1, Pure Denial –
> Im not suggesting that at all.
Yes, you actually do. Here:
If AGW is related to climate change, why would you ask that silly question?
Silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, the ignorant and bumbling bobdroege wrote –
“For the second time today, I have to remind people that photons dont carry the information of the temperature of the body that emits them.”
He’s talking through his rear passage, appealing to the darkness within.
He’s one of those idiots who believes that objects interact with all photons which impinge upon them. The inevitable consequences of his bizarre fantasy is that photons emitted by ice can be absorbed by water, raising its temperature, and that the Earth’s surface can be heated by the radiation from a colder atmosphere.
Bobby is so ignorant that he refuses to believe that even when the atmosphere is warmer than the surface at night (low level inversion), the surface still cools. Even photons from a hotter atmosphere won’t raise the surface temperature in this case!
But bumbling Bobby has it all worked out. His description of the GHE “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Luckily, his ignorance here does nobody any harm. Anybody selling bumbling Bobbys advice about financial planning or brake repairs deserves all they get.
Swenson,
What other information can you get from a photon?
Here is the mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect, a nice description if you will, but you won’t understand it.
“A CO2 molecule absorbs a quantum of electromagnetic energy of a certain energy/frequency/wavelength and starts vibrating.
Then it can transfer that energy elsewhere by emitting another quantum of electromagnetic energy or colliding with another molecule or atom.
The other part is that the CO2 molecule can start vibrating after a collision with another molecule, and then emit electromagnetic energy.
Swenson, here is a quote from you.
“Hes one of those idiots who believes that objects interact with all photons which impinge upon them.”
I believe you were the one who said CO2 interacts with all wavelengths of photons.
But have you been outside lately, grass is green and the sky is blue, and CO2 doesn’t interact with those wavelengths, so you actually see the blue and green colors.
Brain-dead bob, your “mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect” describes warming the atmosphere, which is reality. So, you need to contact your cult HQ for more indoctrination. Your cult claims CO2 can warm the SURFACE, which is nonsense.
Clint,
You do understand the meaning of the word elsewhere?
If my description warms the atmosphere, which is in contact with the surface, then it warms the surface as well.
Or the radiation emitted by the CO2 in the second part, meets the surface and adds its energy there.
Objection overruled
Babbling Bobby,
You wrote –
“If my description warms the atmosphere, which is in contact with the surface, then it warms the surface as well”
Well no, it won’t. An example is radiation frost, where the surface is cold enough to freeze water, in spite of the atmosphere some distance above being well above freezing.
Do you take ignorance pills on a regular basis, or are you just naturally thick?
By the way, a description warms nothing. Here’s one of your descriptions of the GHE –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Is that your best effort, or do you intend to surpass yourself in the future?
Carry on fantasising.
Sorry bob, but you’ve got the same energy doing all the warming!
It’s like saying two ice cubes can raise the temperature more than one.
See why you’re brain-dead?
That’s astute of you Clint,
It does all the warming because it can’t escape.
Bereft of brain bobby,
You burbled –
“It does all the warming because it cant escape.”
What are you burbling about? What can’t escape? Your alleged brain may have escaped from your cranium, leaving your mouth in nonsense-dribbling mode.
Have you considered quitting while you’re behind?
[what an incoherent nutter]
Swenson,
Maybe you could find a hidden word, in Clint’s post, before the phrase “all the warming” in the same position as “it”
That is only if you are having trouble with your reading comprehension.
Bereft of brain bobby,
You burbled
“It does all the warming because it cant escape.”
What are you burbling about? What cant escape? Your alleged brain may have escaped from your cranium, leaving your mouth in nonsense-dribbling mode.
Have you considered quitting while youre behind?
[what an incoherent nutter]
Swenson,
Try reading Clint’s and my post again, it’s obvious what “it” was referring to.
Lazy and dumb.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Bobdroege, you bumblin* incompetent.
You wrote –
“Here is the mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect, a nice description if you will, but you wont understand it.”. You fool, a description is not a mechanism, and your previous description of the mythical GHE – “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”, shows the level of your understanding of either.
Bananas, oxygen, and all matter in the universe can absorb IR. So can CO2.
You also tried to mislead readers in typical fanatical GHE cultis5 fashion, by writing “I believe you were the one who said CO2 interacts with all wavelengths of photons.”
You are too terrified to quote me directly, aren’t you? Like the usual run of gutless “believers”, you imply that your “beliefs” are superior to reality! They aren’t.
Maybe you could try to to describe the GHE in some way which agrees with reality. Is it supposed to heat the planet, do you think? It doesn’t seem so, even after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the Earth’s surface seems to have cooled – as it does every night.
Your latest babbling “A CO2 molecule absorbs a quantum of electromagnetic energy of a certain energy/frequency/wavelength and starts vibrating.” has nothing to do with the GHE, does it? A molecule of anything at all behaves the same way! Actually, photons only interact with electrons, but Ill make allowances for your obvious ignorance, and lower myself to your level.
Bad luck, babbling Bobby, your demonstration of your intellectual prowess seems to have fallen at the first hurdle. At least you now accept that photons can travel though solid substances (like glass) without significant interaction. Maybe you now accept that photons from ice don’t interact with water?
Or maybe not.
Carry on.
Swenson,
You are listening to Gordon again, not the best source for science.
“Actually, photons only interact with electrons, but Ill make allowances for your obvious ignorance, and lower myself to your level.”
“Photons act as individual quanta and interact with individual electrons, atoms, molecules, and so on. The energy a photon carries is, thus, crucial to the effects it has.”
You can google “what do photons interact with”
To get that quote, because the link has bad lettering.
“A molecule of anything at all behaves the same way!”
No, a molecule of oxygen does not behave like a molecule of CO2, it that is what you are trying to say.
Oxygen will support a fire, while CO2 will suppress a fire.
Skipped the chance to study Chemistry in school, did you.
Enough already, I don’t have to argue with a luddite who doesn’t have a clue.
Photons interact with electrons.
There are no special CO2 electrons.
All molecules act exactly the same way in their interactions with photons, because photons interact with electrons.
You don’t understand this sort of thing, do you?
And yes, CO2 and O2 have different properties. Why do you find that surprising?
You wrote –
“No, a molecule of oxygen does not behave like a molecule of CO2, it that is what you are trying to say.” When it comes to the wavelength of the radiation they emit due to temperature, yes they do. That’s why objects at the same temperature are the same temperature.
I know you can’t understand that – many people can’t.
Still, you can’t describe the GHE at all. Why is that?
Mike Flynn,
You pontificate –
> objects at the same temperature are the same temperature.
Objects are temperature?
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
“Photons interact with electrons.
There are no special CO2 electrons.
All molecules act exactly the same way in their interactions with photons, because photons interact with electrons.”
Ugghh. Why can’t we get better skeptics?
Clearly when picking teams, whoever chose Swenson and friends must’ve picked last!
Photons interact with electrons.
There are no special CO2 electrons.
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, of course.
No wonder you can’t even describe the GHE!
Wonky Wee Willy,
If you dont accept that objects at the same temperature are the same temperature, just say so.
Is your description of the GHE still “not cooling, slower cooling”?
It would be odd if you described AGW as anthropogenic global cooling, wouldn’t it?
I suppose you hope that people are stupid enough to believe that your “not cooling, slower cooling” causes warming! Good luck with that!
Carry on.
“Photons interact with electrons.
There are no special CO2 electrons.”
These useless skeptics always screw up basic science facts. Why?
Photons interact with molecules, which are electrons and atomic nuclei bound together in different configurations.
Thus CO2 molecules behave differently than O2 molecules when interacting with IR photons.
Swenson,
Somewhere up thread is where you said this
” I will wager that you cannot specify a photon wavelength with which CO2 will not interact under any circumstances. ”
So I was not directly quoting you, but I got the gist of it, when I said this.
” I believe you were the one who said CO2 interacts with all wavelengths of photons.
Still out in the woods dancing with the fairies, woodnymphs, and especially Pan.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
“Your latest babbling A CO2 molecule absorbs a quantum of electromagnetic energy of a certain energy/frequency/wavelength and starts vibrating. has nothing to do with the GHE, does it?”
Like I said, it’s the mechanism, so yes it has all to do with the Greenhouse Effect.
And now this
“A molecule of anything at all behaves the same way! Actually, photons only interact with electrons, but Ill make allowances for your obvious ignorance, and lower myself to your level.”
Well no, different molecules behave differently.
And photons only interact with electrons, googly moogly, don’t take what Gordon posts as the truth.
“Individual electrons, atoms, molecules
Photons act as individual quanta and interact with individual electrons, atoms, molecules, and so on. The energy a photon carries is, thus, crucial to the effects it has.”
from
a link with bad letters
And you mean raise yourself to my level.
But that would take some science education.
Babbling Bobby,
You wrote –
“Like I said, its the mechanism, so yes it has all to do with the Greenhouse Effect.”
Unfortunately, you can’t describe the greenhouse effect, can you?
Your previous description “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” is complete nonsense, as even Bindidon agreed.
Maybe you prefer the bizarre Willard description “not cooling, slower cooling”? You might even be silly enough to claim the GHE makes the planet hotter! You are not that stupid, are you?
What’s your latest silly attempt at a description of the GHE?
[bumbling Bobby seems confused]
“Unfortunately, you cant describe the greenhouse effect, can you?”
Said in response to Bobdroege describing the greenhouse effect.
And before you say it, the GHE wouldn’t stop the newly formed Earth from cooling. It did warm the Earth after the last Ice Age. So please stop being a dag.
Craig T,
This is bumbling bobdroege’s description of the GHE “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
No Im not joking. You are free to agree if you like.
I can laugh just as hard at two idiots as one.
Why don’t you stop beating around the bush, and just describe the GHE?
Because you can’t that’s why! It doesn’t exist.
Warming is caused by heat, you donkey.
Carry on.
Remember Mikey Flynn,
“Your previous description Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better. is complete nonsense, as even Bindidon agreed.
Remember, I wrote that to make fun of your attempt to discredit the greenhouse effect.
It didn’t work, and I am still laughing at you every time you repeat it.
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote –
“Remember, I wrote that to make fun of your attempt to discredit the greenhouse effect.”
This would be the greenhouse effect that you cannot describe? The greenhouse effect that doesn’t exist?
At least you agree that increasing the amount of CO2 between Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. As Bindidon said, that’s just nonsense.
You are obviously one of those strange GHE cultists who gets caught out saying something particularly stupid, and then claims they were really just trolling!
I can’t discredit something that doesn’t exist, you donkey. It doesn’t exist. You can’t even say what it’s supposed to do. Your latest effort seems to imply that the Earth warms up and cools down for no reason at all, apparently having got hot enough to melt the interior – but not the surface!
I suppose you are now going to say you were only trolling, and you didn’t really mean it.
Carry on lurching from crisis to catastrophe.
Swengoolie,
“Your latest effort seems to imply that the Earth warms up and cools down for no reason at all,”
I wasn’t implying that at all, you are denying that there are periods of warming and cooling in the history of the Earth.
There are a number of things that can warm or cool the Earth.
Take a science class if you are interested.
“At least you agree that increasing the amount of CO2 between Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. As Bindidon said, thats just nonsense.”
Not hardly, I still believe that.
But maybe you could post the whole quote and not just a part of it.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“There are a number of things that can warm or cool the Earth.”
Pity you can’t name any. Pixie dust, magic spells?
Not found in any science text that I am aware of.
When I wrote “at least you agree that increasing the amount of CO2 between Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. As Bindidon said, that’s just nonsense.”
You responded –
“Not hardly, I still believe that”. What, that increasing the amount of CO2 between Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. Or “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”
So which is it, bumbling bobby – does increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer make the thermometer hotter or colder?
You won’t say, will you?
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“There are a number of things that can warm or cool the Earth.”
Pity you can’t quote any.
When I wrote “at least you agree that increasing the amount of CO2 between Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. As Bindidon said, that’s just nonsense.”
You responded –
“Not hardly, I still believe that”. What, that increasing the amount of CO2 between Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. Or “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”
So which is it, bumbling bobby – does increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer make the thermometer hotter or colder?
You won’t say, will you?
Swenson,
“Pity you cant name any. Pixie dust, magic spells?
Not found in any science text that I am aware of.”
So you are not aware of any science texts that deal with global temperatures.
So you admit your ignorance.
Try the IPCC reports.
https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Swenson,
“Pity you cant name any. Pixie dust, magic spells?
Not found in any science text that I am aware of.”
So you are not aware of any science texts that deal with global temperatures.
So you admit your ignorance.
Try the IPCC reports.
https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/”
You are an idiot if you think the IPCC reports is a “scientific text”.
You’re an idiot anyway, you believe in a GHE which even the IPCC can’t describe!
Keep trying.
Mike Flynn,
You infer –
> So you are not aware of any science texts that deal with global temperatures.
So after having admitted being Mike Flynn, you now admit not knowing any science text that deal with global temperatures.
Silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
“You are an idiot if you think the IPCC reports is a scientific text.
How would you know?
Have you read any of them or all of them?
Do you have sufficient science training to be able to figure that out?
I think you still eat Maypo, and are not ready for solid food nor scientific texts.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Record-Matching Sun Flyby
Posted on 2024-04-03 17:02:47
“NASA’s Parker Solar Probe completed its 19th close approach to the Sun on March 30, matching its own distance record by coming about 4.51 million miles (7.26 million kilometers) of the solar surface.”
…
Parker is on track to swing around the Sun from the same distance and at the same speed two more times this year – on June 30 and Sept. 30 – before making the first of its three final, closest approaches on Dec. 24. At that point, with its orbit shaped by the mission’s final Venus gravity assist-flyby on Nov. 6, the spacecraft will zoom just 3.8 million miles from the solar surface, moving about 430,000 miles per hour. ”
https://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
Aphelion: May 15, 2024, 03:04 UTC
6 days 1 hr 17 min
Your current UTC time: 2024-05-09T01:47:38.146Z
Speed of Spacecraft: 49,132 kph
49,132 / 3600 seconds is 13.647777778 km/sec
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
State of the Climate in Latin America and the Caribbean 2023
Warmest year on record
Drought, heatwaves, rainfall and floods undermine economic development
Sea level rise threatens coastal areas and glacier retreat accelerates
LAC region lags in providing weather and climate services
Integrated climate and health strategies making progress
https://wmo.int/publication-series/state-of-climate-latin-america-and-caribbean-2023
Weepy Wee Willy,
Rewriting another definition, are you?
“State of the Climate in Latin America and the Caribbean 2023
Warmest year on record”
You can’t even describe the “Climate in Latin America and the Caribbean 2023”, can you?
You’re insane – living in some bizarre fantasy.
Good for laughs, though.
Mike Flynn,
More silly semantic games –
> Rewriting another definition
What definition would that be, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Bumbling bobdroege wrote –
“With CO2 and the hockey stick, we have correlation and causation.
I just posted the mechanism.”
Unfortunately, the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of an atmosphere, and continuous sunlight during that time.
You burble about a hockey stick, which indicates your inability to both face the reality of four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, mythical GHE notwithstanding, and your blind acceptance of the creation of a meaningless hockey stick by a known fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat.
CO2 creates no heat. None, not a bit even.
Dr Spencer is one of many researchers who is examining the correlation between humans, their energy production and consumption, and hotter thermometers. You may think he is misguided. I don’t. Thermometers respond to heat, not CO2. You are free to reject reality if you wish. Reality doesnt care, and neither do I.
I should repeat your stated mechanism (or is it a description?) –
“Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”
Carry on.
Dr. Spencer is also one of many researchers that has described the greenhouse effect. He’s joined by Richard Lindzen. Raising your antiwarming rants to their level would be a massive improvement in your credibility.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“Dr. Spencer is also one of many researchers that has described the greenhouse effect.”
It’s a great pity you can’t post it here, isn’t it?
Won’t Dr Spencer let you have a copy, or a you one of the crop of fanatical GHE cultists who claims someone else has described the GHE, but you are not allowed to quote their description?
You aren’t reall6 that stupid, are you?
Craig, trying to hide behind Dr. Spencer is one of your funnier, and worthless, cult tactics. Dr. Spencer completely rejects any drastic warming from CO2. He doesn’t argue against the physics of the GHE because physics isn’t his field of expertise. He argues against it from his knowledge of climate.
You need to watch the video of NASA (your cult HQ) Gavin Schmidt running from Spencer. Why do you think so many cult tr0lls are here trying to clog this blog?
“Dr. Spencer completely rejects any drastic warming from CO2.”
True, but he’s educated enough to not deny the greenhouse effect.
“The Greenhouse Effect Decreases the Rate of Energy Loss by the Earths Surface”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/
You might want to search the website, because Roy did an article listing ten arguments skeptics have against the Greenhouse Effect and debunked them all.
That’s some egg on your faces.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“The Greenhouse Effect Decreases the Rate of Energy Loss by the Earths Surface”, which still cools. Is that what are appealing to? The GHE results in temperatures dropping?
Are you like other fanatical GHE who claim that slow cooling is really heating?
From your link –
“So, heres my latest attempt at explaining temperature change, the “greenhouse effect” (yes, I know its not like a real greenhouse, but thanks for the tip), and why alternative theories cannot yet replace greenhouse theory.”
That’s new. The greenhouse effect is temperature change? I don’t think so, but you can believe what you like.
Dr Spencer hasn’t described the greenhouse effect – nor has anybody else. Thst’s why you are reduced to providing links which dont contain any description of the greenhouse effect?
You’re looking more inept as time goes by.
Keep it up!
Bumbling bobby,
You tried an appeal to authority –
“You might want to search the website, because Roy did an article listing ten arguments skeptics have against the Greenhouse Effect and debunked them all.”
Your appeal failed. You can’t even describe the mythical GHE – hard to debunk something that doesn’t exist, because it doesn’t exist. No debunking required or necessary.
Are you sticking with “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”, or were you just saying that trying to annoy somebody?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You declare –
> Your appeal failed.
How so, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
What’s the matter, you couldn’t find Dr Roy’s article?
Just crank up the belligerence to cover up your incompetence.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Whats the matter, you couldnt find Dr Roys article?”
Which article is that? I’m unaware of Dr Spencer or anyone else describing the GHE in any way that reflects reality.
Maybe you could quote the description which you claim exists?
No? Why am I not surprised?
Mike Flynn,
You play dumb again –
> Which article is that?
It lists the ten crankiest arguments that doesn’t help the contrarian cause.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote
“Whats the matter, you couldnt find Dr Roys article.”
Which article is that? Im unaware of Dr Spencer or anyone else describing the GHE in any way that reflects reality.
Maybe you could quote the description which you claim exists?
No? Why am I not surprised?
Mike Flynn,
You really are having a problem with copy pasting links on your iPad.
Have you considered asking a youngster nearby?
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Swenson,
“Which article is that? Im unaware of Dr Spencer or anyone else describing the GHE in any way that reflects reality.”
How about a pretty please with sugar on top.
Assholes don’t get free sammiches from my shop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33zJvKNYv2c
Swenson,
Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is no such thing as 4 1/2 billion years of cooling.
The planet has warmed and cooled over various intervals since it formed out of cold space dust.
See the graph at the top of the page for the latest data and trends.
You should note that it goes up and down.
Bumbling Bobby,
Your imagination is running away with you again. You wrote –
“The planet has warmed and cooled over various intervals since it formed out of cold space dust.”
Only in your fantasies, Bobby, only in your fantasies. You are free to believe that the Earth’s surface was never molten, and free to believe the interior is still cold. I am free to laugh at you.
Even your stupid description of the GHE “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.”, doesn’t quite gel with the rest of your fantasy, does it?
Maybe you could provide the authority for your assertion “The planet has warmed and cooled over various intervals since it formed out of cold space dust.”, particularly the “cold space dust” part? Did you read that inscribed on a wall in the Arkham Insane Asylum, or did you make it up yourself?
[what a guy, away with the fairies]
Swenson Mikey Flynn
“Only in your fantasies, Bobby, only in your fantasies. You are free to believe that the Earths surface was never molten, and free to believe the interior is still cold. I am free to laugh at you.”
You don’t have it in you to actually read what someone posts.
Otherwise you would know that I never posted that the Earth’s surface was never molten.
The Earth has warmed since the Cryogenian about 700 million years ago.
Also I never mentioned the temperature of the interior because that wasn’t part of my statement.
Maybe a fairy told you that, because you think fairies are talking to you.
Bumbling Bobby,
I merely said you were free to believe that the Earths surface was never molten. I suppose you are now going to say that it was molten at one time, is that it?
You are free to believe the interior is not molten, if you wish. You refuse to commit yourself, and won’t deny it, so it must be true. That’s the problem with trying t9 be clever by saying nothing – you get caught out, and have to claim that you were only trolling!
You still can’t (or won’t) describe the GHE.
After saying that “Putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better.” was nonsense, and you were just trolling, you wrote –
“Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”
Which is it, idiot? More CO2 makes thermometers hotter, or more CO2 doesn’t make thermometers hotter? Or do you think the Earth started off cold, heated up and melted, cooled off, heated up again, and so on? You refuse to say, because you’d look really, really, stupid!
It doesn’t matter Bobby, it’s obvious that you are really, really, stupid – no matter what you say or don’t say.
You really have no clue how to appear intelligent, do you?
Swenson,
“You really have no clue how to appear intelligent, do you?”
Is that what I am trying to do?
Yes, the greenhouse effect warms the surface and cools the upper atmosphere.
You seem to have a problem with that, take two science classes and call me in the morning.
“Yes, the greenhouse effect warms the surface and cools the upper atmosphere.”
Except where research papers say it is negative, is that it?
So it warms and cools the surface, and cools and warms the atmosphere, at the same time, does it?
You do keep up with NASA research published in Nature, do you?
All complete nonsense, of course, but I’m surprised at your mythical GHE ignorance.
Swenson,
Would you like a nice vacation where the greenhouse effect is negative?
That can be arranged, but will cost you.
So are you saying that the greenhouse effect is negative somewhere?
You think you found something in your internet browsing that we are not aware of?
So if you think it is negative somewhere, then you must think it is real.
And the overall effect is positive, so what I said is still true.
“Yes, the greenhouse effect warms the surface and cools the upper atmosphere.”
Except where research papers say it is negative, is that it?
So it warms and cools the surface, and cools and warms the atmosphere, at the same time, does it?
You do keep up with NASA research published in Nature, do you?
All complete nonsense, of course, but Im surprised at your mythical GHE ignorance.
Maybe you could avoid reality, and start babbling.
Swenson,
I can repeat myself too.
The greenhouse effect warms the surface, most everywhere, the high antarctica plateau being an exception, and cools the stratosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Hey DR EMPTY,
You missed one.
You wish.
Earlier, some wishful thinker wrote –
“Further, molecules do not stop receiving radiant energy because they are at a higher temperature than the source.”
Well yes, they do, if by “receiving” you mean interacting in such a way that the temperature of the “receiving” object will rise.
That’s clearly nonsense, and about as silly as believing that a colder atmosphere can cause a warmer surface to rise in temperature. The surface cools at night, losing all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat. This has resulted in the Earth itself cooling over the past four and a half billion years.
Of course, facts have no discernible impact on the fevered imaginations of fanatical GHE cultists, who can’t quite describe what they believe in, but are sure it will bring doom eventually!
They are quite mad.
Mike Flynn,
More silly semantic games from your part –
> if by “receiving” you mean
Are you the silliest sock puppet Sky Dragon cranks got?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, some deranged wishful thinker wrote –
“Further, molecules do not stop receiving radiant energy because they are at a higher temperature than the source.”
Well, if they are molecules of liquid water totally surrounded by ice (or something even colder), of course they do!
He is probably stupid enough to believe that warmer objects absorb photons from colder ones – and magically get hotter! Unfortunately, his fevered imagination is not reality.
GHE believers cannot describe the mythical GHE, which makes them look pretty dimwitted by comparison with even the most unschooled children , who can at least describe unicorns, fairies and so on.
Mike Flynn,
You’re repeating your silly semantic game.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
NOAA vs UAH
13-month running averages (12 and two halves)
NOAA anomalies converted to UAH baseline (1991-2020)
UAH has one more month than NOAA at the end (Apr 2024)
https://tinyurl.com/NOAA-vs-UAH
I meant … 11 and two halves.
Here is NOAA vs UAH with the same baseline (1991-2020) AND both data sets detrended so that we can see only the ENSO events (and Pinatubo/El Chichon):
https://tinyurl.com/NOAA-vs-UAH-detrended
We can see here what I stated earlier … that UAH over-represents the extreme events relative to NOAA … warmer for El Nino and cooler for La Nina.
The difference we are seeing now is actually no different to 1998. But for some reason we didn’t see that disparity in 2016.
Of course when the deniers here say this should be “fixed”, they mean only reduce the effect of El Ninos, but leave La Ninas untouched.
Finally, just for the sake of completeness, this is NOAA vs UAH for the same baseline, the same zero trend, AND the same spread (standard deviation):
https://tinyurl.com/NOAA-vs-UAH-same-SD
Not sure what if anything can be read into this one though.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Whiffling Wee Willy at his finest, full comment –
“Puffman keeps proving that cranks have contrarians have little else than the three steps!”
I doubt that Willard can take three consecutive steps without tripping over the foot he keeps putting on his mouth!
He’s the joke that never stops.
Mike Flynn,
Here is one step –
“Mike Flynn.”
Here is a second step –
“Silly sock puppet!”
And here is a third one –
“Cheers.”
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Eastern Europe is experiencing unusually cold weather for May. In Russia, temperatures are significantly below average. The Baltic states report record-breaking morning frosts, which have destroyed fruit trees. See temperature anomaly map:
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=56.6;44.3;4&l=temperature-anomaly-2m
Thank you, Ren, for bringing attention to cold events. It’s so refreshing given all of the constant news about anomalous heat. We live on a healthy, beautiful planet.
Meanwhile, outside cycle nuts’ la-la-land:
UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2024: +1.05 deg. C
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
In frantic desperation, the cult id10ts are trying to use Drs. Spencer and Lindzen to support their GHE alarmist nonsense. Both have clearly refuted the alarmism. Lindzen has even used the word “cult”.
If the cult is this desperate at the peak of the natural warming trend, just imagine how frantic they will be when the cooling trend develops.
Remember, the cult STILL can’t even describe/define the bogus GHE.
Clint,
Your science incompetence is showing.
Yes the cult can describe the greenhouse effect, there are even books and published papers on the subject.
Use your google.
I recently posted the mechanism, how CO2 interacts with infrared.
Sorry bob, but your “mechanism” was incomplete. We know CO2 can absorb/emit 15μ photons. You must show how those photons can warm the surface, without violating principles of physics.
This is about science, not your beliefs.
Clint,
The photons add their energy to the surface of the Earth.
Dry ice (frozen CO2) has a temperature of -79C. The peak emission of a black body at that temperature is 15μ photons.
Since atmospheric CO2 must be above -79C, and “we know CO2 can absorb/emit 15μ photons”, we know the temperature of the source of a photon and the absorbing molecule is not relevant.
Try heating water with CO2 at -79 C.
Try heating anything at all with colder CO2.
Are you really that ignorant, or just pretending? Maybe you could pretend that someone has described the mythical GHE? Norman, perhaps who describes the GHE as “insulation”. Pointless, but admirably brief.
Off you go, demonstrate your ignorance and gullibility.
Shut up, Puffman.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Sorry again bob, but adding energy does NOT always result in a higher temperature. Adding more ice to a system does not increase the temperature above 32F, no matter how much ice is added. This has been explained to you before, but you can’t learn.
Norman had a chance to provide a viable description/definition of the bogus GHE, but failed. Your entire cult has failed. You have failed also.
Thanks for playing.
Clint,
“Sorry again bob, but adding energy does NOT always result in a higher temperature.”
You got them weasel words in there, “not always”
But in the case where the surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun, then the added energy from photons from CO2 do indeed result in a temperature increase.
Obviously, if a comet hits the Earth, and adds its energy, you get an increase in temperature. A comet being a dirty iceball.
We are not adding ice to the surface of the Earth with the greenhouse effect, so your ice analogy fails epically.
Try an analogy that agrees with reality.
Responsible adults know I wasn’t referring to comets, bob. You’re just trying to pervert my simple analogy. That’s what you have to do since you have NOTHING. Your cult has no viable description/definition of the bogus GHE. Your cult has no viable model of “orbiting without spin”. Your cult doesn’t even know how to walk around a tree!
That’s why I limit the time I waste with you cult id10ts.
And, your time is up….
Clint,
Photons add energy but not mass…
So draw your own conclusion about your bricks analogy.
Hint: It’s dumber than a sack of bricks.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Photons add energy but not mass.”
Einstein said e=mc2. The m is for mass. e is for energy.
You don’t understand anything, do you?
You also wrote –
“But in the case where the surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun, then the added energy from photons from CO2 do indeed result in a temperature increase.”
Are you going to deny that the Earth once had a molten surface, and has cooled to its present temperature?
You are definitely strange.
Carry on.
Swenson,
“Are you going to deny that the Earth once had a molten surface, and has cooled to its present temperature?”
That’s irrelevant to the greenhouse effect, but I don’t deny that, never did.
Do you deny that there are periods of warming and cooling in Earth’s history.
Do you think the early molten Earth cooled linearly to today’s temperatures, or do you think it might have cooled according to Newton’s law of cooling?
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote
“Photons add energy but not mass.”
Einstein said e=mc2. The m is for mass. e is for energy.
You dont understand anything, do you?
You also wrote
“But in the case where the surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun, then the added energy from photons from CO2 do indeed result in a temperature increase.”
Are you going to deny that the Earth once had a molten surface, and has cooled to its present temperature? No?
That’s good to hear. Rather negates any warming if it cooled.
You are definitely strange.
Carry on.
Swenson,
When an infrared photon interacts with the surface of the Earth, it’ energy is not converted into mass.
“Photons add energy but not mass.
Einstein said e=mc2. The m is for mass. e is for energy.
You dont understand anything, do you?”
You just quoted an equation, yet you have no understanding of what that means.
And you should write the equation correctly, like
E=mc^2
Clint R
You are wrong. I provided a correct version of GHE. You inability to understand what I provided is your flaw not mine. 0
Read and weep, Norman.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665817
Clint,
“Adding more ice to a system does not increase the temperature above 32F, no matter how much ice is added.”
You did say no matter how much ice is added, so I suggested added a whole bunch at a very high speed.
Kablooey!
bob…please stop being silly.
About what you’d expect from an idiotic and fanatical GHE enthusiast who can’t describe the GHE!
He’s stupid enough to believe that reducing the amount of sunlight reaching a thermometer makes it hotter! Even at night, he said!
Not my experience, but bumbling bobby has convinced himself that the Earth was created cold, and got hotter, then colder, then hotter, . . .
Ah, the wonders of Bobbys fantasy are amazing to behold!
Mike Flynn,
Don’t you remember that one of your silly talking points involve desert nights?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666338
Weary Wee Willy,
Thanks for the support. Are you too frightened to quote me, or can’t you figure out how?
Here you go, Ill help you –
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.
See? How easy it is.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote
“You did say no matter how much ice is added, so I suggested added a whole bunch at a very high speed.
Kablooey”
Off you go then. Translate your fantasy into reality. Does your stupidity have any bounds at all?
Mike Flynn,
You express gratitude –
> Thanks for the support.
It is my duty to make sure everyone gets that you are a silly sock puppet who keeps repeating the same tired tropes that have nothing to do with anything!
Cheers.
Swenson,
Sorry but comets have been observed colliding with planets.
Shoemaker-Levy 9
Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Shut up, Puffman.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
New York Times Article – Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point nutty. He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.
Nutty old Clint
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666196
Have you actually read Lindzen on the GHE? He claims it is an immature theory, essentially aimed at the kindergarten level. Lindzen’s explanation of the GHE is totally different than the accepted definition.
In fact, in his article on the GHE, he claims the warming produced by CO2 is naturally limited to a few tenths of a degree C.
G,
“Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point nutty.”
Feynman agrees with me –
“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.”
There are no “tenets of climate science”, because climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Science?
Obviously Dr Lindzen believes that the Earth was created cold, and has been heated up since.
He can’t describe the GHE either. Why is that, do you think? Because it doesn’t exist, that’s why!
Find another authority to appeal to.
I wish all of that was true. Lindzen had this Iris theory that increased cloud cover would counteract the CO2 warming. Please link if Lindzen changed his tune.
I found Galaxy’s reference, it’s from 2012. Lindzen did say CO2 was warming the planet but he expected his Iris idea would protect us.
Craig T,
“I found Galaxys reference, its from 2012. Lindzen did say CO2 was warming the planet but he expected his Iris idea would protect us.”
Lindzen is wrong, then. CO2 warms nothing, not even a tiny bit. Grab hold of some frozen CO2 emitting 15u photons. Tell me how warm it feels.
You are an idiot if you are stupid enough to believe that dry ice can make water (or anything else hotter than dry ice) even hotter!
Go on, try and describe the GHE!
Iris hypothesis, wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis
In terms of my commenting on it.
I agree with everyone, we don’t understand clouds.
But in terms of general aspect, I tend to believe the tropic ocean is limited in it’s surface waters temperature and related to vapor pressure of water:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water
Generally, the most important aspect of global climate, is that we are in an Ice Age.
And in terms of global average temperature, it’s determined by the global surface temperature. And most of Earth surface is ocean area.
We can talk about the rocky surface, most of it, has an ocean above it. And rocky surface of the ocean, is very young rocky surface- and we know very little about it.
And one also talk about the land’s rocky surface, and the change topography of land surface, has been largely blamed for why we are in an Ice Age.
A reason we perhaps know more about the rocky land surface, is due to the general interest in mining it.
BTW…hot off the press is Loeb et al. 2024 – Observational Assessment of Changes in Earths Energy Imbalance Since 2000 which I think adequately falsifies Lindzen’s iris hypothesis.
“I agree with everyone, we dont understand clouds.”
Especially not Judy Collins.
“Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?”
“The calculations show that such a change in the Tropics could lead to a negative feedback in the global climate, with a feedback factor of about -1.1, which if correct, would more than cancel all the positive feedbacks in the more sensitive current climate models. Even if regions of high humidity were not coupled to cloudiness, the feedback factor due to the clouds alone would still amount to about -0.45, which would cancel model water vapor feedback in almost all models.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/82/3/1520-0477_2001_082_0417_dtehaa_2_3_co_2.xml
“We find that large decreases in stratocumulus and middle clouds over the sub-tropics and decreases in low and middle clouds at mid latitudes are the primary reasons for increasing [absorbed solar radiation] trends in the northern hemisphere (NH). These changes are especially large over the eastern and northern Pacific Ocean, and coincide with large increases in sea-surface temperature (SST).”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-024-09838-8
Exactly. And it’s not just this Loeb et al. 2024 publication presenting evidence that clouds have actually decreased resulting in higher ASR. I just posted it because it was published 2 days ago and because Bob Weber up higher felt Loeb’s CERES dataset was good enough to use.
How could a fictitious energy budget displace Lindzen’s theory?
Lindzen’s Adaptive Infrared Iris paper depended on working with energy budget models.
“We assume the current value of moist fractional area to be 0.25, and choose the remaining parameters so as to be consistent with the global mean temperature being 288 K, and match Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERB) observations.”
Loeb’s 2024 paper depended only on observations.
“We examine the global, zonal and regional variations and trends in TOA radiation both for the entire CERES period and sub-periods corresponding to the hiatus (20002010), transition-to-El Nino (20102016), and post-El Nino (20162022) to highlight TOA radiation changes across periods of markedly different internal variability. We also use the new CERES FluxByCldTyp (FBCT) data product to quantify the contribution to TOA radiation changes by different cloud types using a cloud classification scheme based upon cloud types provided in FBCT. Finally, we discuss some of the challenges associated with isolating the underlying processes that contribute to changes in TOA radiation from observations alone.”
“BTWhot off the press is Loeb et al. 2024 Observational Assessment of Changes in Earths Energy Imbalance Since 2000 which I think adequately falsifies Lindzens iris hypothesis.”
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. More energy out than in, obviously.
The surface cools at night. More energy out than in.
The Earth is big blob of stuff, mostly hot enough to glow, slowly cooling.
Good luck with heating it up.
What a pack of fools!
Mike Flynn,
How can clear nights be colder than cloudy nights if the Earth has cooled down since the dawn of times?
Silly sock puppet, cheers.
“How can clear nights be colder than cloudy nights if the Earth has cooled down since the dawn of times?”
Look it up.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Look up what, Mike Flynn?
That’s easy:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/24/environmentalism-versus-science/#comment-746492
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Weepyy Wee Willy,
If I say something, and you appeal to my authority, it must be worthwhile saying it again –
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.
I’m glad you agree. No GHE to be seen.
Willard,
Maybe you were referring to this, but were too frightened to post it –
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.
No GHE present or necessary. Thanks for appealing to my authority. I appreciate the support.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Too frightened to post? I’ll help you –
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.
No GHE. Thanks for the support. Feel free to quote me as much as you like.
Mike Flynn,
Too frightend to post what?
This –
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/24/environmentalism-versus-science/#comment-746492
You’re quite right.
I’m shaking, silly sock puppet!
Worried Wee Willy,
See? It’s not that hard, is it?
Just like this –
“Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.”
No silly links needed.
Feel free to quote me as many times as you want. I appreciate your support.
Mike Flynn,
You play dumb again –
> No silly links needed.
Have you ever heard of the concept of citation?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Worried Wee Willy,
See? Its not that hard, is it?
Just like this
.Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.”
No silly links needed.
Feel free to quote me as many times as you want. I appreciate your support.
Mike Flynn,
You challenge me to quote you right after I did.
You must have simply lost your your footing in the threads, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666229
Clint, you haven’t said anything about my comment pointing out that you admitted atmospheric CO2 could absorb a photon from dry ice. (See link above)
Craig T,
Ooooooooh! An irrelevant link, is it?
Yes, if the atmosphere is colder than the CO2, it will be capable of absorbing photons from the warmer. It is called “heating”.
By the same process, liquid nitrogen can be heated by using frozen CO2 emitting 15u photons.
Anything colder can be heated by exposing it to the radiation from something hotter. Not the other way round, of course.
I’m surprised you didnt know theses facts. Only joking, Im not surprised at all. You are possibly stupid enough to believe the ground is warmed by the atmosphere!
No wonder you can’t describe the GHE!
craig…from your link…
“Since atmospheric CO2 must be above -79C, and we know CO2 can absorb/emit 15μ photons, we know the temperature of the source of a photon and the absorbing molecule is not relevant”.
***
CO2 ‘can’ absorb 15u photons but there are other rules governing whether or not it will. Atmospheric CO2 will absorb 15u photon from the surface only because the CO2 is in a region of the atmosphere that is colder than the surface. If the CO2 is at a higher temperature than the surface, it ill not absorb the surface radiation.
I am adding the obvious because 15u is not a magic number. CO2 that absorbs 15u energy from the surface will radiate energy to the surface at a different frequency/wavelength. That’s why the surface will not absorb it.
The temperature of the CO2 molecules determines the frequency/wavelength.
“I am adding the obvious because 15u is not a magic number. CO2 that absorbs 15u energy from the surface will radiate energy to the surface at a different frequency/wavelength.”
It’s true that 15u is not a magic number. But light with a 15u wavelength matches the activation energy to create a vibration in the CO2 molecule. This happens at room temperature.
“The deformation vibration of the CO2 molecule at 667 cm-1 [15u] is already thermally obtainable at room temperature, meaning that some of the molecules vibrate even when they are not irradiated with infrared light.”
https://wiki.anton-paar.com/en/infrared-spectrum-of-carbon-dioxide/
A CO2 molecule that absorbs 15u radiation will emit 15u radiation unless it collides with another molecule first. Then the radiant energy is transformed into kinetic energy.
I used to think that the warming occurred when the photon was emitted toward the ground. But after reading more detailed papers I’ve learned that it is the molecular collisions that keep the energy from leaving the atmosphere. In the stratosphere CO2 molecules are unlikely to collide with a another molecule before they emit photons that were absorbed.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“A CO2 molecule that absorbs 15u radiation will emit 15u radiation unless it collides with another molecule first. Then the radiant energy is transformed into kinetic energy.”
You really have no clue, have you? If a molecule emits precisely the same energy it receives, how would you know? The molecule would be completely unaffected. It would absorb no energy, being completely transparent.
You go on to say –
“But after reading more detailed papers Ive learned that it is the molecular collisions that keep the energy from leaving the atmosphere.”
More complete nonsense. The atmosphere cools at night. As Fourier said “Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”
Resulting in four and a half billion years of cooling, but you probably dont accept that.
Maybe you could describe the GHE – or copy somebody else’s description, and be prepared to defend it. That sounds fair, doesn’t it?
I don’t believe you can, but feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Donkey.
craig…describing this via molecules is futile. A molecule is just a name for two or more atoms boded by electron bonds. It is the properties of the atoms making up the molecules that is relevant.
But we need to go deeper still. The nucleus of the atom, with neutrons and protons is not relevant either. All absorp-tion and emission is performed by electrons changing orbital levels.
It is important to get it that no other mechanism exists in an atom or a molecule to absorb and emit EM. Only electrons can interact with it. The EM cannot reach the nucleus and if it could and interfered with the equilibrium relationship between electrons and the nucleus it would unbalance the atom.
Norman is confused about this, speaking of vibrating bonds. However, those bonds are electron bonds, they are electrons shared between atoms. When the bond length changes linearly, or the bond vibrates about an axis, it is the electron orbital changing length or angle.
All molecules, that is, all atomic bonds vibrate. That is due to the nature of an electrostatic bond which comprises a negative and positive charge. It’s the same with planets, they are always changing orbital parameters due to the interaction of momentum and gravitational force. However, with electrostatic bonds, there is a continual vibration.
If a bonding electron should absorb EM, that will increase the energy in the bond and that affects the bond vibration. Same if it emits energy.
Gordon,
They don’t call them electrostatic bonds anymore, now they call them ionic bonds.
CO2 doesn’t have ionic bonds anyway, the bonds in CO2 are covalent.
And now this:
“The temperature of the CO2 molecules determines the frequency/wavelength.”
Not for gaseous CO2, temperature determines the rate, not the frequency/wavelenth.
Too bad you never passed any chemistry courses or you would know that.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 403.9 km/sec
density: 3.49 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 09 May 24
Sunspot number: 142
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 227 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.93×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.0% Low
“Giant sunspot AR3664 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar ”
6 numbered spots. not number spot coming from farside.
3563 [another X-class spot, may not leave within a day]
From above thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1664751
Solar wind
speed: 453.6 km/sec
density: 3.45 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 10 May 24
Sunspot number: 170
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 233 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.38×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.6% Low
7 numbered spot. 1 spot coming from farside, 1 spot going to farside
The group of sunspots which caused high daily sunspot last month are “coming soon”- assuming they survived. Some think they have, and would make April +150 sunspot number. But at moment I just see one small to moderate spot, coming.
Solar wind
speed: 771.8 km/sec
density: 3.05 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 11 May 24
Sunspot number: 156
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 223 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.65×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -6.5% Low
7 numbered spots. Spot is coming and will be numbered from farside.
The 1 spot didn’t go to farside 3663 number is still there, and 3666
looks like going to farside. The big one 3664 will take about 3 or more days to leave the nearside.
High flux, high neutron count, seems quite active, and a lot more sunspots are suppose to be coming from the farside.
On May 11, a strong solar wind from the eruptions of a spot that is close to the solar equator will hit the Earth’s magnetosphere.
https://i.ibb.co/n73vPJ3/pobrane.png
christos…I don’t understand how the concept of a photon helps visualize anything.
Consider an electron emitting a quantum of energy. The quantum is released in a short burst of EM energy which has a definite frequency and a definite form with an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. The quantum is not a particle because a particle has mass and EM has none. It is a burst of energy with one frequency, much like the EM released from a Morse code transmitter tapping out one letter.
Also, particles don’t diminish in intensity with the square of the distance from the source. The concept of a photon has been exaggerated to the point it makes no scientific sense. Even a wavefront makes no sense since a wave is a reference to EM of one frequency. EM as we know it in space is a summation of billions of different frequencies/wavelengths.
Gordon,
“EM as we know it in space is a summation of billions of different frequencies/wavelengths.”
Exactly. Sun doesn’t limit its emission frequencies at the narrow H2 and He2 bands.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Also, particles dont diminish in intensity with the square of the distance from the source.”
Imagine you shot 1,000 particles through a small hoop 10 feet away, and they were evenly spaced so that each particle went on a different path. If a wall behind the hoop was 20 feet away from you, the area on the wall struck by the particles would be 4 times the area of the original hoop.
If you placed the small hoop on the wall where the particles struck, you would find only 250 spots in that area where the particles hit. For the same area only 1/4 of the energy that went through the hoop at 10 feet reached the wall at 20 feet.
You really should research the photoelectric effect.
Craig T,
Imagine . . .
Imagine you can’t describe the GHE, but just keep claiming somebody else can.
I imagine that rational people would imagine that you are a fanatical GHE cultist, fiercely believing in something quite imaginary!
You have a fertile imagination, don’t you?
You might even imagine you can stop climate change! Only in your imagination, Graig T, only in your imagination.
Keep imagining.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666304
Oooooh! A link!
Does it contain anything relevant, or are you just trying to avoid the fact that nobody can describe the mythical GHE?
Or are you just making an inept attempt to be annoying? It won’t work, you know.
Who could be bothered with being annoyed by somebody who can’t help suffering from a mental defect – for example, someone who claims that a GHE exists, but cannot be described.
That sounds like cult thinking – not science.
Mike Flynn,
You exclaim –
> Oooooh! A link!
Craig suggested that you adopt Puffman’s idea of linking to your previous sock puppet posts.
It would save you the time of posting the same words over and over.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666153
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bob d…”But in the case where the surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun, then the added energy from photons from CO2 do indeed result in a temperature increase”.
***
Several reasons why you are wrong.
1)CO2 only absorbs 7% of surface radiation. Norman asked where I got that figure. He should know, he posted the surface radiation spectrum with the notch in it to estimate surface radiation absorbed by CO2, a pure estimate. The value given was 28 watts absorbed by CO2 out of whatever radiation was deemed appropriate. The radiation figure I used comes to 7% although other values can range up to 12%.
Example, using the traditional value of 235 w for IR radiation, 28w/235w = 11.9%. 7% or 12%, I don’t care, it’s insignificant.
The point is, most IR escapes directly to space without being intercepted by CO2. Even if your theory is correct, more than half of the intercepted IR is not radiated back, so you are asking us to accept that 90+ % of the heat is lost via radiation yet only around 10% returned can make up for those losses and warm the surface.
Doh!!!
2)Recycling heat does not work in real physics. You simply cannot dissipate heat at a surface by radiation then send radiation back, without amplification, and increase the heat at the surface. Such an act is perpetual motion.
3)The clincher… the 2nd law states clearly that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder area to a warmer area.
Gordon Robertson
CO2 will absorb around 7 to 12% of the IR emitted by the surface. The value depends upon water vapor content as the two gases overlap.
The item I questioned was not what CO2 absorbs but you had said this: “Besides, GHGs only absorb about 7% of surface radiation.”
You made the claim of all GHG including H2O and other GHG. Anyway if you intended just CO2 you would be correct.
Doubling of CO2 will increase DWIR about 3 W/m^2. How much that will increase the surface is debatable.
On your point. The GHE is not about magically heating the surface. It is reducing the rate of heat loss of the surface. The IR returns to the surface and is absorbed. It will not heat the surface because the surface is losing energy at a faster rate by emission. It slows the cooling. But the surface is solar heated so it is gaining energy continuously (at least some parts). That is how the GHE works, the GHG reduces surface heat loss and that allows the solar heat flux to warm the surface to a higher temperature. Similar to what happens when you reduce the rate of heat loss of any heated surface (note the word heated). A coat keeps the body warm in cold weather by reducing the rate of heat loss, insulation in your home keeps it warmer with same heat input, anything that reduces the rate of heat loss will warm a heated object. Is that really so hard for you to understand? You can understand convective insulation, or conductive but radiant insulation throws you for a loop. Does not matter the GHE is not a violation of the 2nd Law at all. It is just another type of insulation that you are not understanding.
Norman,
You still can’t describe the GHE, but at least you are getting closer to understanding why you can’t.
You wrote –
“The GHE is not about magically heating the surface. It is reducing the rate of heat loss of the surface. The IR returns to the surface and is absorbed. It will not heat the surface because the surface is losing energy at a faster rate by emission. It slows the cooling.”
As Fourier said “Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”
Hence, the surface being colder than it was four and a half billion years ago.
You finally say “Does not matter the GHE is not a violation of the 2nd Law at all. It is just another type of insulation that you are not understanding.”
The GHE is just another type of insulation, is it? That makes sense, the atmosphere prevents about 30% of the Suns energy from even reaching the surface. Obviously, insulation doesnt stop the surface cooling, just influences the rate at which it cools. The hottest places on Earth (arid deserts) also cool the fastest, due to lower amounts of insulators like H2O in the atmosphere.
Is that your current description of the GHE, then? “It is just another type of insulation.”
At least it has the benefit of brevity, as well as being completely pointless.
norman…”The IR returns to the surface and is absorbed. It will not heat the surface because the surface is losing energy at a faster rate by emission. It slows the cooling”.
***
The IR cannot be absorbed because it comes from a colder object than the surface. Clausius, who stated the 2nd law claimed radiation must obey the 2nd law and he was adamant that heat can NEVER be transferred ***by its own means*** from a colder body to a warmer body.
And, again, a trace gas would have little or no effect on the rate of heat dissipation, even if your theory was true. In the atmosphere, CO2, at 0.04% could warm the atmosphere no more than 0.06% due to its low mass in the atmosphere. It would warm the surface even less.
As Swenson states, Norman “still can’t describe the GHE”.
Norman had a chance, but he blew it….
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665817
Clausius stated the 2nd law of thermodynamics this way:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Heat refers to the net transfer of energy. It also only applies to whole objects. Individual molecules do not have a temperature – an object’s heat is the sum of the kinetic energy in those atoms.
Craig T,
You quoted –
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Does your description of the mythical GHE agree?
Only joking, you can’t describe the mythical GHE, can you? That’s because it’s mythical – even more mythical than a unicorn. Even children can describe a unicorn!
> still cant describe the GHE
Step 1 and 2 – Pure Denial and Sammich Request
And the rest of Puffman’s comment is him saying stuff, which means he once again complete the Contrarian Hat Trick!
Silly sock puppets.
Witless Wee Willy,
You still can’t describe the GHE, so you are reduced to trying to troll. Do you really think you actually manage to annoy anybody? You certainly dont seem to be doing too well.
Oh dear, Willard. How does it feel being both impotent and incompetent?
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “The IR cannot be absorbed because it comes from a colder object than the surface. Clausius, who stated the 2nd law claimed radiation must obey the 2nd law and he was adamant that heat can NEVER be transferred ***by its own means*** from a colder body to a warmer body.”
Other than posting your incorrect opinion of Clausius and making a misleading statement, do you have any experimental evidence to support your false claims? If you have evidence provide it. Science is an evidence based system of deriving the truth. You provide opinions but no evidence.
Evidence supports that IR will be absorbed by a hotter object. Stating that it will not will need supporting evidence. At this time I am rejecting your false and incorrect opinion.
You also do not state Clausius correctly as he clearly stated that radiant energy is a two way exchange!! The hot body will receive IR from the colder one but will still cool because it is losing energy at a greater rate. I have read his own words on it, posted it to you and you choose to read it not how he states it.
Gordon,
The entire greenhouse effect only raised the temperature of the Earth’s surface by 12%, so your complaint is rejected.
What do you know about real physics, the amount sent down is less than the amount going up, so no perpetual motion, no amplification needed, but it does add energy to the surface that is being heated by the Sun, so the energies add.
The second law does not falsify greenhouse theory, the transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the surface is not “by its own means” the transfer of energy form the Sun to the surface makes it not by its own means.
Baffled bobby,
“The entire greenhouse effect only raised the temperature of the Earth’s surface by 12%, so your complaint is rejected.”
This is the greenhouse effect that you cannot describe?
Or some other greenhouse effect?
Swenson,
Yes, the greenhouse effect that has been described for you many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
On The Starship Delays
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Articles by a human, and an AI, at Reason.
SpaceX Edges Closer to the Moon
Plus, an AI-generated version of the same article
https://reason.com/2024/05/09/spacex-edges-closer-to-the-moon/
FAA has it’s problems. NASA has more problems.
Any govt agency has problems if doing anything in the real world.
craig t “Dry ice (frozen CO2) has a temperature of -79C. The peak emission of a black body at that temperature is 15μ photons”.
***
Frozen CO2 at -79C will not emit 15u photons.
What do you get for the peak wavelength of a black body at -79C?
Craig T.
“What do you get for the peak wavelength of a black body at -79C?”
If you don’t know, you could always look it up.
Unlike a description of the GHE, which doesn’t exist.
Mike Flynn,
It’d be hard for Craig to look up what Mr. Asshat gets for the peak wavelength of a black body at -79C, silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If you are going to claim 15 microns for -79C using Wein’s law then you need to note that CO2 at 15C should be 10um at +15C, not 15 um.
Willard, I’ve decided life is better when I don’t read Swenson’s posts. He never has anything new to add to the discussion.
But if Swenson was asking, I already looked up the peak emission for a blackbody at -79C. If Gordon has a source that differs I’ll be glad to look at it. If he’s just stating that I’m wrong I’m not sure what to say (other than how does he know.)
Here’s the calculator I used:
https://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
Earlier, bumbling bobdroege wrote –
“Yes, the greenhouse effect warms the surface and cools the upper atmosphere.”
And according to bumbling bobby, alternately heats and cools the Earth, over and over!
While simultaneously heating and cooling different parts of the atmosphere – day or night!
bumbling bobby suffers from a mental defect which interferes with his perception of reality.
He is unable to demonstrate otherwise.
Craig T,
You are not suggesting that CO2 at -79 C can heat anything hotter, are you?
Or maybe you believe that the wavelengths of IR emitted by CO2 don’t vary proportional to absolute temperature?
No wonder you can’t describe the GHE – you obviously are away with the fairies, seeing what isn’t there!
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature – unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
I follow what you’re saying Gordon, but the fact that a blackbody at 15C emits a peak of 10μ doesn’t change anything. The light absorbed by CO2 at room temperature can be measured, and it is a sponge for the 15μ spectra.
Notice that a 15C blackbody emits in the range of 4 – 40μ. It puts out 3/4 the amount of 15μ photons as 10μ photons.
Blackbodies are a scientific model – a simplification of the messiness of real life. Gasses don’t act much like blackbodies.
Craig T,
You wrote –
“The light absorbed by CO2 at room temperature can be measured, and it is a sponge for the 15μ spectra.”
Well, of course. And bananas are even more absorbent – over a wider range of frequencies, too.
Are you trying to imply something, or just trolling for no particular reason?
Maybe you could describe the mythical GHE. Does CO2 feature in the description?
Mike Flynn,
You’re a bit like Milton Friedman –
You know how to spell “banana” but you don’t know when to stop.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard, have you come up with a better GHE description than “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Dimwit.
Swenson,
“Yes, the greenhouse effect warms the surface and cools the upper atmosphere.
And according to bumbling bobby, alternately heats and cools the Earth, over and over!
It warms the surface and cools the upper atmosphere at the same time, not alternately.
Be careful to read others posts, lest you look like a hack.
Earlier, bumbling bobdroege wrote
“Yes, the greenhouse effect warms the surface and cools the upper atmosphere.”
And according to bumbling bobby, alternately heats and cools the Earth, over and over!
While simultaneously heating and cooling different parts of the atmosphere day or night!
bumbling bobby suffers from a mental defect which interferes with his perception of reality.
He is unable to demonstrate otherwise.
Swenson,
Can you quote me directly
“And according to bumbling bobby, alternately heats and cools the Earth, over and over!”
Because I never said that.
Makes you look dumb when you act like an ass.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
I think you should try Clint’s idea of linking to previous posts. It will save you the time of posting the same words over and over.
I think you should try finding a GHE description.
It will save you all that time and effort of avoiding reality.
Mike Flynn,
Silly sock puppet:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666338
Willard,
Why so scared to quote me?
I’ll help you out –
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasn’t surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.
Actually, the GHE doesn’t exist. That might explain why it doesn’t work too well at night, or during the day, or . . .
“Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.”
Our tropical ocean wouldn’t freeze during 14 day night on the Moon.
Though our present ocean in the arctic winter are currently frozen, because, Earth has been in an Ice Age.
But they aren’t frozen in winter and long dark nights near the polar region.
“Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesn’t seem to work too well at night.”
That’s true. Water vapor is an important greenhouse gas that is scarce in the desert.
Craig is now claiming that water vapor is “heating the planet”?
Good, we can let CO2 “out of jail”. We’ve found the guilty one.
All we need to do to save the planet is sequester all the oceans.
(For the cult children, this is sarcasm.)
Craig T,
Are you agreeing that less greenhouse gases result in lower surface temperatures, or are you going to complain you were just confused?
You did write –
“Water vapor is an important greenhouse gas that is scarce in the desert.”, when I pointed out how fast temperature can drop in the absence of supposed greenhouse gases. Maybe you forgot that the opposite is also true – temperatures rise faster, and to higher temperatures, in the absence of supposed greenhouse gases!
The hottest places on the planet are characterized by their lack of that most important supposed greenhouse gas – H2O. A couple of examples are the Lut Desert, or Desth Valley.
How is your non-description of the GHE going? Not well?
Colour me unsurprised.
Mike Flynn,
Do you agree with Craig that water vapor is a greenhouse gas?
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Do you agree with Craig that water vapor is a greenhouse gas?”
What a stupid gotcha!
There is no greenhouse effect, and therefore no greenhouse gases because of it.
You can’t describe the greenhouse effect, much less what constitutes a supposed greenhouse gas!
If Craig wishes to call water vapour a greenhouse gas, or a dangerous pollutant, or a deadly poison, he is quite free to do so. He may call it gaseous dihydrogen oxide, for all I care.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You deny the greenhouse effect yet cite an instance of the effect of greenhouse gases.
Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot like that – because you are a silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn,
You go for another silly semantic game –
> If Craig wishes to call water vapour a greenhouse gas
Why are you such a silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Do you agree with Craig that water vapor is a greenhouse gas?”
What a stupid gotcha!
There is no greenhouse effect, and therefore no greenhouse gases because of it.
You cant describe the greenhouse effect, much less what constitutes a supposed greenhouse gas!
If Craig wishes to call water vapour a greenhouse gas, or a dangerous pollutant, or a deadly poison, he is quite free to do so. He may call it gaseous dihydrogen oxide, for all I care.
Willard, please stop tro‌:lling.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You agree with Craig about the radiative properties of water vapor.
Whether you like it or not, you accept the greenhouse effect, at least in part.
Keep playing silly semantic games, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn just issued another dumb challenge –
> Why so scared to quote me?
I just quoted him right there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666338
And just told him:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666328
May our silly sock puppet live long and prosper.
No, you fool,
You posted a link, because you were too scared to quote me, but I’ll help you.
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.
See? Not that hard, really. No GHE at all.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Yes, I posted a link.
Did you?
Are you scared to link to what you brayed for years at Judy’s?
Silly sock puppet!
You posted a link, because you were too scared to quote me, but I’ll help you.
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.
See? Not that hard, really. No GHE at all.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Without the link, one can’t find back the original comment.
Why are you such a silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Willard, somewhat confusingly, you wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Without the link, one can’t find back the original comment.”
Is this the substance of the original comment –
“Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesnt seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasnt surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.”?
Don’t you agree? What does “can’t find back” even mean?
Are you speaking Willardese, or some other strange English dialect?
Monomaniacal Mike,
You say –
> This is the substance
The only substance in your silly comment is that you accept the radiative properties of greenhouse gases.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The Sun Isnt Enough: New Study Revolutionizes Vitamin D Guidelines
…
“A comprehensive analysis of key determinants of vitamin D and their interactions revealed novel insights. The first key insight is that ambient UVB emerges as a critical predictor of vitamin D status, even in a place like the UK, which receives relatively little sunlight. The second is that age, sex, body mass index (BMI), cholesterol level, and vitamin D supplementation significantly influence how individuals respond to UVB. For example, as BMI and age increase, the amount of vitamin D produced in response to UVB decreases.”
https://scitechdaily.com/the-sun-isnt-enough-new-study-revolutionizes-vitamin-d-guidelines/
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
It is amusing to see all of the comments about radiant heat transfer. For an individual molecule in the atmosphere, it is very simple. Anyone with a high school education and a reasonable amount of intelligence can go to Wikipedia and figure it out. Failure to accomplish that task does not mean the science is wrong.
The important point is that the radiant energy leaving the molecule reduces the enthalpy of the atom, and is therefor a heat transfer process. Radiant energy arriving at the molecule increases enthalpy and is also a heat transfer process. The details about spectra, black body radiation, photons, and T^4 is not necessary unless you want to quantify the exchange. The net effect of those two transfer processes is either an increase or decrease in the enthalpy, and that is the net heat transfer.
It us useful to think of the concept of resonance, or you can accept that both of those exchange process are real.
The complexity involves the fact that different molecules do have different spectra, and that effects both incoming and outgoing radiation (I am avoiding the bad words so I don’t get rejected and then have to sort through the text). This is the reason that the climate models are nothing more than circular logic. They assume that all measured warming is accurate and caused by CO2, and then use that to calibrate the models. Otherwise, they are completely faulty. Laboratory experiments and short range measurements do not accurately model the entire complex atmosphere.
Tim S,
You wrote –
“The complexity involves the fact that different molecules do have different spectra, . . .”
Only if in an excited state (neon or sodium vapour lamp, for example), or you are shining light of appropriate frequencies at your molecules (say spectroscopic examination).
Given a darkened room, you cannot determine what, if anything, the space contains, by examining internal radiation properties.
Photons from CO2 or gold, at the same temperature, are indistinguishable. Sad, but true. No way of distinguishing matter by radiation emitted as a result of temperature (below excitation temperature).
Obviously (or not) the intensity varies with the matter, but still tells you virtually nothing, if all you know is the wavelength and intensity. For example, even where a hotter atmosphere is emitting radiation to a colder surface, the surface still cools, regardless of interacting of “absorbing” energy from the hotter atmosphere.
People gibbering on about photons and suchlike, don’t seem to want to accept reality. Even hotter objects do not necessarily stop cooler objects from cooling even further.
Nobody can describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality. You are welcome to try, and I wish you luck. You’ll need it.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
> Only if in an excited state
Are you suggesting that your sock puppet is corroborating the greenhouse effect?
Cheers.
No.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“(I am avoiding the bad words so I dont get rejected and then have to sort through the text)”
I’m amused that I could post the 7 words you can’t say on television here but not the word absor*tion.
Craig T,
Do you mean absorption!
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You say –
> Do you mean absor#8204;ption!
No, Craig refers to the a-word without your silly HTML trick that makes you use verboten words and PSTer Team Science.
Silly sock puppet!
Willard,
You mean absorption, do you?
Do certain words terrify you?
Monomaniacal Mike,
You are really proud of your silly HTML trick to bypass moderation.
Keep acting like a silly sociopath, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
A squirrelly computer code is moderation.
When it is a blacklist by the blog owner to discourage cranks to PSTer people, gb, you bet it is.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The solar wind impact on May 11 will be strong and sudden. It may cause a sudden increase in seismic and volcanic activity.
https://i.ibb.co/dGzWrcC/predicted-kp-indices.png
Earlier, Willard asked –
“Where did I claim that cooling was warming, Mike?”
When you ascribed AGW to the mythical GHE.
You described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, which apparently resulted in warming (as you say, the W in AGW).
Of course, you could just deny ever having described the GHE in any fashion at all, deny that AGW has anything to do with warming, and scuttle away like the strange cockroach you resemble.
If you didn’t claim anything at all, then you couldn’t be accused of saying anything. You don’t actually claim anything at all, is that it? Maybe you could try claiming you are not an idiotic troll, and demand that people show that you arent.
You’re a strange fanatical GHE cultist – who can’t even describe the GHE!
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is not constrained by the Holders inequality between integrals.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“According to Shula, conduction/convection is 260 times more effective at removing heat from the surface.”
Thomas E. Shula came to this conclusion using a Pirani gauge.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/a-novel-perspective-on-the-greenhouse-effect/
Oddly, a Pirani gauge measures pressure not radiation. Inside it is a heated wire. Pressure is determined by comparing the heat loss to a gas to the heat loss in a vacuum.
He leaves out that a Pirani gauge must be calibrated for the gas being measured, more so at pressures found in the troposphere. Both CO2 and water vapor absorb more heat per molecule than O2 or N2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirani_gauge#/media/File:Nomogramm_pirani-Vakuummeter.jpg
Craig T,
You wrote –
“Both CO2 and water vapor absorb more heat per molecule than O2 or N2.”
Is this statement supposed to have some relevance to something?
In any case, according to Wikipedia “Depending on the temperature, the average heat energy per molecule may be too small compared to the quanta needed to activate some of those degrees of freedom. Those modes are said to be “frozen out”. In that case, the specific heat capacity of the substance increases with temperature, sometimes in a step-like fashion as mode becomes unfrozen and starts absorbing part of the input heat energy.”
Is your initial statement temperature dependent, or absolute?
Do you really understand what you are talking about?
Are you gullible enough to believe in a mythical GHE?
Questions, questions! Do you have any cogent answers?
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4654557-trump-big-oil-1b-campaign-cash-request/
Trump asks for a $1B campaign donation from big oil.
Gee, ya think climate activists match that?
This place is a big enough zoo without bringing up politicians.
But Craig, the GHE nonsense is all about politics.
It sure ain’t science….
Shut up, Puffman.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Shut up, Puffman.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Climate activists have the major media. C’mon Nate, you know that. From a recent news story: In a recent study, scientists say the base of the Statue of Liberty could be buried by sea level rise in coming years — millions will be displaced.
Truth and reality are not needed. All they need is to quote “a recent study”. The study is so speculative as to be nonsense, but that is not the way it is reported.
I know someone who is involved in emergency planning. The official estimate for planning purposes in the year 2015 was 10 inches of sea level rise in the next 20 years. We are halfway there, what has happened? In 10 more years when the rise is less than an inch they will just make a new crazy estimate to scare people.
> From a recent news story
That “recent” does a lot of work here.
Behind that smug facade, TS is just an ordinary troglodyte.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Within the cult, I don’t know if it’s possible to link one person with some of the nonsense. But, it appears as if this “Loeb” Is largely to blame for the “EEI” nonsense. His full name is “Norman G. Loeb”, and he is affiliated with NASA/CERES. I can’t find out about his education, or area of expertise, but he is associated with a lot of anti-science that comes out of NASA.
Anyone know anything about his education? Is he the one that invented the EEI nonsense?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA Official: Norman Loeb
Page Editor: Ed Kizer
Page Last Updated: April 23, 2024
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov
https://science.larc.nasa.gov/people/norman-loeb/
Loeb attended McGill University. His degrees were in “Atmospheric Science”. If you look at the syllabus, he had NOTHING except indoctrination. He was indoctrinated to believe flux can be treated as energy.
Like all of the cult, he has no understanding of radiative physics or thermodynamics.
Clint R lacks any technical skills & scientific education, like does his friend-in-denial Robertson.
He should try to understand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flux
Wow, Bindi used to try to maintain some level of maturity. But, he’s slowly digressed into just another blog tr0ll, with no regard for the truth.
He’s seeing all his false beliefs flame out, right before his eyes. These are not good times for him.
Shut up, Puffman.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Shut up, Puffman.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
If one person is to be linked it’s probably Clausius. He was the first to succinctly state that in a closed systems internal energy changes are equal to the difference of the heat accumulated within and the work done by it. The equation is thus dU = Q – W. Or written in a more contemporary form with a focus on the energy conservation principal it is meant to convey it would be dE = Ein – Eout. Applying this to TOA we swap EEI for dE, ASR for Ein, and OLR for Eout thus becoming EEI = ASR – OLR.
The first person to apply the 1LOT to the atmosphere was W. Dines in 1917. In his work he used letters (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, and M) to represent the various energy flows where ASR = A – D and OLR = F + K at what he called the “Outer Limit of Atmosphere” which we refer to as the top of atmosphere (TOA) today. He presented several 1LOT style relationships of these energy flows. His work assumes balance at all levels so EEI = 0 at the outer limit of the atmosphere and using his nomenclature it becomes 0 = (A-D) – (F+K).
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qj.49704318203
All wrong or irrelevant, bdgwx.
Why don’t you email Loeb? (His email is on the NASA CERES site.). Tell him you are a devout fan, and wonder if he knows that radiative fluxes are composed of photons. If fluxes can be simply added/subtracted, ask him what is the sum of a 15μ photon and a 2μ photon.
Can’t rebut the science? Malign the scientists. That’s the current denier strategy.
What deniers don’t get is that people are not the science. One person doesnt make it. Particularly a large observational effort effort like CERES and its cousin satellites.
Individual photons are not fluxes.
No REAL scientist was maligned, Nate. Loeb is not a scientist if he violate principles of physics.
Loeb is a government bureaucrat working for a government bureaucracy. He’s abusing his position by promoting false concepts. He hides in his NASA hole, touting his worthless NASA awards. Why don’t you ask him to come here to tell us how fluxes can be treated as energy.
He won’t come out In public. Just like Gavin ran from Spencer, Loeb can’t face reality.
Prove me wrong. Email him and ask him to come here and defend his false science.
That won’t happen…..
Having Loeb and Lindzen on here to debate would be a hoot. Every time Lindzen mentioned EEI or OLR the Sceptics wouldn’t know if they should cheer or boo.
From “Dynamics in Atmospheric Physics”
Richard Lindzen
“Held and Suarez (1974) have shown that 500mb temperatures correlate better with infrared emission than do surface temperatures. … The fact that total infrared emission is not perfectly related to surface temperature is merely an indication that a significant portion of the emitted radiation originates in the atmosphere. Similarly, not all of the incoming radiation is absorbed at the surface; in practice, some of the incoming radiation is not directly involved in the surface energy budget.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234267903_Dynamics_in_Atmospheric_Physics
That one quote shows the EEI ain’t science.
It only gets worse, for the cult….
Shut up, Puffman.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Shut up, Puffman.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
bdgwx,
You wrote –
“Or written in a more contemporary form with a focus on the energy conservation principal it is meant to convey it would be dE = Ein Eout”
Complete nonsense, you are dreaming. If energy in = energy out, using misleading “climate science” jargon, then temperature does not change.
The Earth has demonstrably cooled to its current temperature – in spite of the energy from four and a half billion years of sunlight!
Do you still contend that energy in equals energy out, or were you indulging in a spot of cultist fantasy?
I hope you don’t intend to say such silly things when you try to describe the mythical GHE!
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
Who cares what you wrote?
You admitted being a sociopath.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote
Shut up, Puffman.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You blunder again.
I did you write “Shut up, Puffman.”
I wrote “Shut up, Puffman.”
Silly sock puppet.
You wrote –
“I did you write “Shut up, Puffman.””
Would you mind using the English language on this blog?
You just wrote “Shut up, Puffman”, didn’t you? I’m not sure what “I did you write” means in English.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You blunder again.
I did you write “Shut up, Puffman.”
I wrote “Shut up, Puffman.”
Notice the emphasized text?
That’s a link.
Something you very seldom use.
Why is that, silly sock puppet?
Willard, you wanker,
You wrote –
“You blunder again.
I did you write “Shut up, Puffman.””
“I did you write”? Really?
What language are you trying to use? Certainly not English.
[he’s either sloppy or stupid]
Monomaniacal Mike,
You remark –
> [hes either sloppy or stupid]
What kind of sloppy editorial convention is that?
I hope nobody from the O&G industry asks you to write reports.
Cheers, silly sock puppet,
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
gbaikie
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1664751
“The averaged blue line is flat. It needs to be about 160 for March, to remain flat.”
Incorrect. May has to average 99 spots per day for the SSN (“the blue line”) to remain unchanged.
Given the data from the first 10 days of the month, the last 21 days of May have to average 71 for it to remain unchanged.
And if the remainder of the month averages 90 then this cycle will have a new peak … ie. the rise will resume after a 4 month pause.
May needs 103 sunspot to across the redline. If 90, NOAA latest guess about cycle 25 max, is looking like it could be wrong. If 160, or more, it’s supportive of the guess.
The spots which gave +200 number last month are returning soon- if they survived it {or grew].
The guess of the big spot returning, hasn’t had high batting average,
but we will see in next couple days.
As low as 90 fpr the May doesn’t seem likely. But May being 160 or more helps keep NOAA alive, but coming months would likewise need to be 160 or more to turn blue line to going upward.
But if NOAA is wrong, could possibly get double peak, later.
Again, not correct. Even if all of May had zero spots, the new SSN would be 121, more than the max height of 115 for “the red line”.
Why do you care so much about comparing to people’s random predictions? Don’t you understand that none of them have a clue. Whoever gets closest has merely won a random lottery.
Nothing will “keep NOAA alive” … their prediction has already been beaten. And Zharkova’s prediction has already been annihilated. The SSN has been well above her predicted max for 15 straight months, and that should end up being a MINIMUM 24 months.
The ONLY meaningful comparison is against last cycle, not against an arbitrary and meaningless “red line”. We’ve already beaten SC24 for spots, flux, and neutron counts.
And in the end … it makes almost no difference to anything.
— Antonin Qwerty says:
May 10, 2024 at 5:28 PM
Again, not correct. Even if all of May had zero spots, the new SSN would be 121, more than the max height of 115 for the red line.–
If May was 0 [which can’t be] it would little effect upon blue line direction. Same applies to +160 for May.
But if May, June, and July was average of 160, the blue line will go up. And NOAA will seem to be correct. But if it’s 120 average for 3 months, the blue line goes dowm. If 100 or less, goes down more.
I don’t think it will likely average 100 or less for 3 months.
My only purpose in commenting here was to challenge your claim:
“The averaged blue line is flat. It needs to be about 160 for March (May), to remain flat.”
As I said, that number is 99, not 160. Anything else you say is you trying to avoid admitting that you got it wrong.
The NOAA prediction is suppose to go up a lot {the blue line suppose to go a lot} and it’s not double peak up a lot. So when does this happen.
Or the high numbers of June 2023: 160.5 {smoothed blue line: 125.3}
and July 2023: 160.0 {smoothed : 125.4}.
And NOAA prediction was done after the summer.
Or I am not talking about prediction before solar cycle 25 started.
So trying to determine if and when it’s proven or disproven. And the same applies to Valentina Zharkova prediction which was well before cycle 25 started.
I thought it could have happened, before 2024 started, but I was wrong on both counts.
“The largest ever recorded leap in the amount of carbon dioxide laden in the worlds atmosphere has just occurred, according to researchers who monitor the relentless accumulation of the primary gas that is heating the planet.
The global average concentration of carbon dioxide in March this year was 4.7 parts per million (or ppm) higher than it it was in March last year, which is a record-breaking increase in CO2 levels over a 12-month period.”
i.e. no sign of an approach to net zero emissions.
Tighten your seat belts!
That is due to the extreme temperatures.
Increases in CO2 cause increasing temperatures, but conversely warm years also cause greater emissions of CO2 from the oceans. If we get a La Nina now then the rise next year will be much lower.
Don’t make the deniers’ mistake of basing inferences on single years.
“Increases in CO2 cause increasing temperatures…”
FALSE!
CO2 cannot increase temperatures. There is no viable mechanism. The GHE nonsense if all based on cult beliefs.
I never get tired of correcting the cult kids….
Just list your credentials here:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It’s funny to see an anonymous tr0ll demanding documentation!
But, that’s what kids do….
I have linked to my real name here before, if you can be bothered digging. You certainly have not, #g#e#r#a#n.
Antonin,
You listed all of Clint’s credentials.
The check is in the mail….
Shut up, Puffman.
AQ,
You claim that you can produce heat by some cunning use of H2O. You are dreaming.
You can’t.
Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.
You are so ignorant, you believe that the mythical GHE can be described without generating raucous laughter!
It can’t.
Another meaningless say-nothing response from #g#e#r#a#n.
But at least you understand that we are talking about CO2 … unlike your angry dementia-ridden grandpa above.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Another meaningless say-nothing response from #g#e#r#a#n.
But at least you understand that we are talking about CO2 unlike your angry dementia-ridden grandpa above.”
Have you borrowed Willard’s gibberish generator?
Or does your keyboard just hammer away by itself?
Still playing dumb, Monomaniacal Mike Flynn?
Silly sock puppet!
I just checked the Mauna Loa data. March 2024 was 4.41 ppm above March 2023, not 4.7.
Also, the April data is out. April 2024 is only 3.2 ppm above April 2023. The annual gap will probably drop to 1 ppm if we enter a La Nina.
Only?
For decades the annual increase was about 2ppm. Now we’re seeing 3.2ppm/year or 4.4ppm/year.
Acceleration?
Acceleration?
Hopefully.
If we can get CO2 up to 550-600ppm, it will bring two benefits — Earth’s flora will explode, and the Alarmists will have to face reality.
Did you actually read my entire comment? Quoting one part of my comment out of context like that is what the deniers do.
The average annual rise for the last 5 years of the 1990s was 2 ppm.
The average annual rise for the last 5 years is 2.6 ppm.
Looking at calendar years, only 2016 had a rise of 3 ppm (3.4 and another El Nino year). This year has a reasonable chance of being the second. Next year almost certainly won’t.
“Now were seeing 3.2ppm/year or 4.4ppm/year” is a misleading comment.
Increment is higher in El Nino years.
AQ – more CO2 and H2O from burning fossilised plant life restores the balance of nature.
Burn, baby, burn!
You may starve while you freeze in the dark on my behalf if you wish. Feel free to gnash your teeth, rend your garments, and flagellate yourself at the same time.
I prefer my comfortable life.
Hey Flynn … I see you had to mention H20 again to cover over your earlier mistake.
Heads up … any H20 released by burning fossil fuels does not directly raise atmospheric H20 levels … it rains straight back onto the surface. It is the rising temperature from increased CO2 and CH4 which changes the equilibrium level between water vapour and liquid water (thus adding to the greenhouse effect). It would be the same new equilibrium level for a given temperature if the process was left up to increased evaporation.
The “balance of nature” is another one of your throwaway terms that you choose to leave undefined to give the required ambiguity.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Heads up any H20 released by burning fossil fuels does not directly raise atmospheric H20 levels it rains straight back onto the surface.”
Maybe you are not aware of the terms absolute humidity, and relative humidity, nor of Daltons Law of Partial Pressures?
Even so, you say that any H20 released into the atmosphere rains straight back to the surface. Your expired water vapour is around 5% of total expired volume. It does not rain straight back to the surface. You are “burning fossil fuels” – carbon and hydrogen, in a complicated process involving other elements. You might prefer the word “oxidising”.
Of course H2O gas releases into the atmosphere raise the levels of H2O gas! It’s a gas, not a liquid or a solid. Are you completely dim?
No wonder you won’t even try to describe the GHE. You wouldnt know where to start.
You really need to study the concept of equilibrium. The levels here are literally just a drop in the ocean.
We have a billion gigatons of ocean. Perhaps you would care to share how many gigatons of water vapour are released from fossil fuel burning each year and are competing with the oceans for equilibrium.
AQ,
You wrote
“Heads up any H20 released by burning fossil fuels does not directly raise atmospheric H20 levels it rains straight back onto the surface.”
Maybe you are not aware of the terms absolute humidity, and relative humidity, nor of Daltons Law of Partial Pressures?
Even so, you say that any H20 released into the atmosphere rains straight back to the surface. Your expired water vapour is around 5% of total expired volume. It does not rain straight back to the surface. You are “burning fossil fuels” carbon and hydrogen, in a complicated process involving other elements. You might prefer the word “oxidising”.
Of course H2O gas releases into the atmosphere raise the levels of H2O gas! Its a gas, not a liquid or a solid. Are you completely dim?
No wonder you wont even try to describe the GHE. You wouldn’t know where to start.
Do you think that the GHE is about equilibrium, perhaps?
Google takes you only so far when you have no innate understanding … after that you have to start repeating your comments.
EVERYONE here has “described the GHE” to you at some point, including me. You just provide a typical snarky say-nothing response then pretend ad infinitum your question has never been answered.
Ant, NO ONE has described/defined the bogus GHE that stands up to scrutiny. Just throwing crap against the wall ain’t science. Upthread, Norman tried but omitted anything about CO2! In his failed effort, he forgot the cult’s anathema about a gas needed for life.
Several have tried to describe/define the bogus GHE, and all have failed.
Shut up, Puffman:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666470
“Shut up, Puffman:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
cLInt
Again, valid scrutiny requires valid qualifications.
I invite you again to list yours.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
https://i.ibb.co/fvXCRzH/Screenshot-2024-05-10-16-00-57.png
FAA to begin environmental review of Starship launches from Kennedy Space Center
Jeff Foust May 10, 2024
https://spacenews.com/faa-to-begin-environmental-review-of-starship-launches-from-kennedy-space-center/
…
–A new EIS, the FAA concluded, is needed because of changes in the design of Starship and its operations since the 2019 assessment. SpaceX now proposes to construct additional launch infrastructure not previously contemplated in the 2019 EA, the FAA stated, including a catch tower for Super Heavy booster landings. The Starship/Super Heavy design itself has changed significantly since 2019, and SpaceX has discussed plans to further evolve the design.
SpaceX now contemplates a higher launch rate, with up to 44 launches annually from LC-39A. The Super Heavy booster will also land back at LC-39A, while in the earlier EA SpaceX proposed landing the booster on a droneship or at Landing Zone 1, the former Launch Complex 13 at nearby Cape Canaveral Space Force Station used for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy booster landings today.–
How long will it be, before SpaceX needs to launch Starship more than 50 times per year?
Not long.
And it seems could launch Starship from the ocean area east of KSC, but also could launch in the Gulf of Mexico, such as ocean off coast of Texas.
It of course will be political matter, and so probably attempt both, unless there is strong political support for a ocean area which allow just one ocean site to be focused on.
The Kp index shot up momentarily almost to 8. This is a strong geomagnetic storm.
https://i.ibb.co/92p2c4N/estimated-planetary-k-in.png
Maybe I will see northern light down here, but at moment {during day} it’s around Oregon, but others are suppose to follow.
https://i.ibb.co/KFwT7Xx/aurora-map.jpg
This is a violent and strongest geomagnetic storm in many years. Satellites and communications are threatened.
An Extreme G4 Solar Storm Train, Eight Storms Race to Earth | Space Weather Spotlight 10 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXia20jA4tI
She says the active sunspot are going to turn into nearside, soon.
Perhaps, it’s just the beginning!
Solar storm could make Northern Lights visible in UK
BBC
Hafsa Khalil – BBC News May 10, 2024 at 1:55 PM
“Stargazers across the UK could have the chance to see the Northern Lights this weekend, as a solar storm hits Earth.
Clear skies overnight on Friday and into the early hours of Saturday could offer a rare glimpse of the phenomenon.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has issued a rare solar storm warning.
Storms of this scale could potentially impact infrastructure, including satellites and the power grid, it warned.”
https://www.aol.com/solar-storm-could-northern-lights-205556932.html
Clear skies would be important, and it’s cloudy here {so, not any chance}.
Hmm, weather channel hourly forecast say it will clear by 7 pm. But still, a very low chance.
gb…the solar wind actually causes the Northern Lights.
“the solar wind actually causes the Northern Lights.”
But if there is cloud cover stargazers across the UK won’t see the northern lights. That’s why Gbaikie brought it up.
Best chances to see the northern lights over New York, New Jersey, Connecticut
By Evan Rosen | erosen@nydailynews.com | New York Daily News
May 10, 2024 at 7:00 p.m.
https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/05/10/where-to-see-the-northern-lights-nyc-nj-ct-tonight/
“A rare G4 level geomagnetic storm has the potential to make the northern lights visible in the tristate area late Friday night, and possibly through the weekend.
The Kp index, which measures the disturbance in Earths magnetic field, is registering around an 8 out of 9 in the New York area the highest in the region since 2005. A Kp level of 7 or higher is typically needed to see the northern lights.”
Link given:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/planetary-k-index
When you’ve seen the lights once, that’s all you need, unless you are seriously bored.
“Gordon Robertson says:
May 10, 2024 at 5:55 PM
When youve seen the lights once, thats all you need, unless you are seriously bored.”
Says, Canadian
If it’s foggy, you might see it.
The entire temperature spike is due to hunga-tora. The amount of water vapor injected into the atmosphere is enormous. It will be a couple of years before it dissipates.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/03/24/the-extraordinary-climate-events-of-2022-24/
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A couple in their 70s left homeless after their trailer home burned to the ground in last summer’s Nova Scotia wildfires; an artist in Charlevoix, Que., whose studio was destroyed in floods after a powerful rainstorm; a general store in Tatamagouche, N.S., struggling to pay the bills after post-tropical storm Fiona.
Families and small businesses in Canada like these are increasingly turning to crowdfunding for financial help as they struggle to recover from the damage wrought by floods, wildfires and storms.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/climate/canada-extreme-weather-crowdfunding-1.7194851
Willard, please stop trolling.
CBC, like their UK counterpart, the BBC, are government organizations that reflect the ijiotic view of the government. In this case, the government are climate alarmists who are currently losing popular vote at an alarming rate, as Canadians clue into what their agenda means.
A while back, the CBC invited the late Fred Singer to talk about his skeptical views on climate. Their real agenda became apparent during the interview as they badgered him about a 30 year old association with the tobacco industry. CBC was and still is a representative of climate alarm, just like their UK counterparts, the BBC.
We here in BC get forest fires too and we accept it as the way it is. When you have large tracts of forest land in areas where severe lightning storms and drought occurs, you expect forest fires. Some years are worse than other but the thing to realize is that the worst year was 1939.
BTW….drought has been a common occurrence in many parts of BC for as long as anyone can remember. No link to climate change whatsoever.
Willard thinks that humans broke the weather.
He probably gets anxious just from feeling the sun, thinking it’s evidence of the world becoming an unlivable, scorched planet.
Deep down, Graham D. Warner sincerely believes in his fundamental power to probe minds.
Meanwhile:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax1192
Perhaps he should not project his own Troglodyte inadequacy on the whole human specie.
Walter,
Fanatical GHE cultists like Willard forget that to change the climate, you first have to change the weather, climate being the statistics of historical weather observations.
Unfortunately, experience shows that efforts to change the weather are generally unsuccessful. Sacrifices to the gods work about as well as anything.
Better to take an umbrella if it looks like rain, or wear a hat if you are averse to the idea of bright sunlight on your pate.
I have invited Willard in the past to panic on my behalf, if he is worried about the future. I can’t be bothered panicking, as I agree with the IPCC that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
I assume that tomorrow’s weather will be much the same as today’s, unless It looks as though it won’t. I’m rarely wrong.
“[T]the CBC invited the late Fred Singer to talk about his skeptical views on climate. Their real agenda became apparent during the interview as they badgered him about a 30 year old association with the tobacco industry.”
The original Merchant of Doubt, there wasn’t a corporation that Singer wouldn’t shill for. No connection between cigarettes and cancer, no connection between sulfur dioxide and acid rain, no connection between CO2 and climate.
“In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machineincluding the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer’s group and Exxonmet at the American Petroleum Institute’s Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20071023055701/https://www.newsweek.com/id/32482/page/3
Willard,
You quoted –
“Humans began to leave lasting impacts on Earths surface starting 10,000 to 8000 years ago.”
By discovering fire. Now we know how to make much bigger, better, and more efficient fires.
Potable water, electricity, internal combustion engines are all within our grasp.
Thanks for pointing it out, but I think most people already know about human civilisation, and prefer their food cooked.
“Unfortunately, experience shows that efforts to change the weather are generally unsuccessful. Sacrifices to the gods work about as well as anything.”
Swenson you Crack me up lol
Mike Flynn,
You admitted being Mike Flynn.
You also admitted being a sociopath.
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Swenson,
I enjoy sunny days, rainy days, and snowy days alike, and if it’s anomalously warm or cold, I just go with it without second thought. It’s all happened before.
People who get excited over this issue just think one-dimensionally. They think that looking at numbers on a spreadsheet is going to help us gain better knowledge about the weather long-term. I’ve analyzed local temperature data for years, and I can’t make anything useful out of it.
“Mike Flynn,
You admitted being Mike Flynn.
You also admitted being a sociopath.
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?”
Is Willard seeking employment as a village idiot? Can he rise to that level?
The world wonders!
Our silly sock puppet says stuff once more.
But is he braying about?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
You admitted being Mike Flynn.
You also admitted being a sociopath.
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?”
I suppose someone more stupid and gullible than yourself might value your opinion. Can you name someone willing to admit they are more stupid and gullible than you are?
I doubt it, but feel free to show that I am wrong.
Are you seeking employment as a village idiot? Can you rise to that level?
The world wonders!
Our silly sock puppet says stuff once more.
But he braying about?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Mike Flynn,
You admitted being Mike Flynn.
You also admitted being a sociopath.
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?”
Are you biased against sociopaths? Or psychopaths? Or homosexuals? Tut, tut, Willard, what happened to diversity and inclusivity? You may describe me as anything you desire – it wont change anything, you know.
I suppose someone more stupid and gullible than yourself might value your opinion. Can you name someone willing to admit they are more stupid and gullible than you are?
I doubt it, but feel free to show that I am wrong.
Are you seeking employment as a village idiot? Can you rise to that level?
The world wonders!
Willard rejects the English language – creates his own.
“But he braying about?”
Not quite up to village idiot standard yet.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn plays dumb again–and abuses the improper syntactic marker once more.
What a silly sock puppet
Willard rejects the English language creates his own.
“But he braying about?”
Not quite up to village idiot standard yet. Maybe he got hit on the head by a syntactic marker?
Maybe syntactic marker doesn’t mean what Wee Willy thinks it means, besides being totally irrelevant to the GHE, which Willard thinks means “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Oh well, onwards and upwards.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn plays dumb again–and abuses the improper syntactic marker once more.
What a silly sock
Willard rejects the English language creates his own.
“But he braying about?”
Not quite up to village idiot standard yet. Maybe he got hit on the head by a syntactic marker?
Maybe syntactic marker doesnt mean what Wee Willy thinks it means, besides being totally irrelevant to the GHE, which Willard thinks means “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Oh well, onwards and upwards.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn plays dumb again–and abuses the improper syntactic marker once more.
a silly sock
Willard rejects the English language creates his own.
“But he braying about?”
Not quite up to village idiot standard yet. Maybe he got hit on the head by a syntactic marker?
Maybe syntactic marker doesn’t mean what Wee Willy thinks it means, besides being totally irrelevant to the GHE, which Willard thinks means “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Maybe you could say something idiotic like “Monomaniacal Mike Flynn plays dumb againand abuses the improper syntactic marker once more.
a silly sock”?
Oh well, onwards and upwards.
Maybe our silly sock puppet does not know what is an em dash.
Monomaniacal Mike only cares about his writing and he is so sloppy!
Silly sociopath.
Willard rejects the English language creates his own.
“But he braying about?”
Not quite up to village idiot standard yet. Maybe he got hit on the head by a syntactic marker?
Maybe syntactic marker doesnt mean what Wee Willy thinks it means, besides being totally irrelevant to the GHE, which Willard thinks means “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Maybe you could say something idiotic like “Monomaniacal Mike Flynn plays dumb againand abuses the improper syntactic marker once more.
a silly sock”?
Oh well, onwards and upwards.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn plays dumb againand abuses the improper syntactic marker once more.
silly sock
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bdg…”If one person is to be linked its probably Clausius. He was the first to succinctly state that in a closed systems internal energy changes are equal to the difference of the heat accumulated within and the work done by it. The equation is thus dU = Q W”.
***
I have read Clausius cover to cover and I don’t recall him once talking about an open or closed system. Anyone who uses such a reference is using it as a red-herring argument.
Clausius is responsible for the U in the 1st law. He describes U in detail in his work as the sum of internal heat and internal work. Vibrating atoms are doing internal work and they need internal heat to alter the vibration. That is, more heat increases vibration whil removing heat reduces it.
According to Clauius, the 1st law can be written as…
Qint + Wint = Qext – Wext
Where Qint + Wint = U
That makes more sense as equations go and it reveals the 1st law as being a summation of work and heat energies only. It has nothing to do with a generalized energy equation as in the conservation of energy theory. It is an example only of an equilibrium condition between heat and work.
Meanwhile, on Vancouver Island:
https://www.sfu.ca/~mbahrami/ENSC%20388/Notes/Entropy.pdf
Wasted Wee Willy,
Is this supposed to have some relevance to the mythical GHE, or are you just trolling for no reason!
Mike Flynn,
Is this supposed to make us forget that you admitted being a sociopath?
Silly sock puppet!
first of all, SFU is not on Vancouver Island. It is located on the mainland in the city of Burnaby, atop Burnaby Mountain.
Secondly, the Gibbs free energy equation can be visualized much easier in the form G = H – TS. It is an equation of heat balance although it is called free energy for some reason.
The free energy, G, is the enthalpy, or total heat, H, minus the heat used up in the system and no longer available, also known as entropy, or TS.
Actually TS is not entropy per se but temperatue, T, x S. However, as defined by ClLausius, T is constant and can be transferred from S = dQ/T to isolate Q = heat.
Again…this refers to only heat being conserved and in no way is it representative of all energies. Ergo, the 1st law can be claimed only as a conservation of heat energy and work=related energy.
Enthralled by his logorrhea, Mr. Asshat’s forgets to acknowledge that the Clausius statement indeed refers to a closed system.
But he’s right about the location of the U. My mistake.
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Is this supposed to make us forget that you admitted being a sociopath?
Silly sock puppet!”
I dont know. What do you think? Is your description of the GHE still “not cooling, slower cooling”?
If you are trying to troll, you need to try harder.
Keep at it.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
> I dont know
What is it that you “dont” know – gramer?
Should anyone care about what you do or “dont” know?
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Mike Flynn,
Is this supposed to make us forget that you admitted being a sociopath?
Silly sock puppet!”
I don’t know. What do you think? Is your description of the GHE still “not cooling, slower cooling”?
If you are trying to troll, you need to try harder.
Keep at it.
Mike Flynn,
You reiterate –
> I dont know.
Should anyone care what a silly sock puppet who just admitted being a sociopath knows?
Cheers.
Whassamatter, Willard?
You wrote “I dont know.”
Did the cat eat your apostrophe? I’m sure I wrote “I don’t know”, but possibly your enthusiasm to be totally idiotic got the better of you.
Maybe you could stick to demonstrating your intellect by describing the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, instead of worrying about the apostrophes you leave out.
I leave some out from time to time, you know. I threw in a typographical error for you to find.
Go for it.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You play dumb once more –
> Whassamatter
What are you braying about?
Mr. Asshat is stuck with the fact that if he did not recognize that Clausius referred to closed systems, then perhaps he should read him “cover to cover” once more, this time focusing on what’s between the covers.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Whassamatter, Willard?
You wrote “I dont know.”
Did the cat eat your apostrophe? Im sure I wrote “I don’t know”, but possibly your enthusiasm to be totally idiotic got the better of you.
Maybe you could stick to demonstrating your intellect by describing the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, instead of worrying about the apostrophes you leave out.
I leave some out from time to time, you know. I threw in a typographical error for you to find.
Go for it.
Or you could scuttle away, and start banging on about Clausius or someone, hoping to appear intelligent!
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You keep blundering –
> Did the cat eat your apostrophe? Im sure
Care to try again, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
I threw in a typographical error for you to find.
It wasn’t that hard, was it?
Harder than trying to describe the GHE any better than “not cooling, slower cooling”, I suppose.
You could always try to avoid taking responsibility for your silliness by whining about apostrophes – pretending you are an authority on English expression. The extremely ignorant and gullible might value your opinion.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You pretend –
> I threw in a typographical error for you to find
No, you didnt, my silly sock puppet.
You simply wouldnt abide to the only standard you ever cared about.
Cheers!
I threw in a typographical error for you to find.
It wasn’t that hard, was it?
Harder than trying to describe the GHE any better than “not cooling, slower cooling”, I suppose.
You could always try to avoid taking responsibility for your silliness by whining about apostrophes pretending you are an authority on English expression. The extremely ignorant and gullible might value your opinion.
Willard, thanks for another laugh at your expense –
You wrote “You simply wouldnt abide to the only standard you ever cared about.”
Is English your second language, or are you speaking Willardese again? Your gibberish generator might do a better job.
Monomaniacal Mike,
I threw in a gramer error for you to find.
Have you found it yet, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Willard, thanks for another laugh at your expense
You wrote “You simply wouldn’t abide to the only standard you ever cared about.”
Is English your second language, or are you speaking Willardese again? Your gibberish generator might do a better job.
It might support your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Donkey.
Monomaniacal Mike,
I threw in another gramer error for you to find.
You still havent found it, silly sock puppet….
Cheers.
Willard, thanks for another laugh at your expense
You wrote “You simply wouldnt abide to the only standard you ever cared about.”
Is English your second language, or are you speaking Willardese again? Your gibberish generator might do a better job.
It might support your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Donkey.
Willard, please stop trolling.
What are you braying about, Monomaniacal Mike?
The not-warming line is all yours.
Silly sock puppet!
Willard, thanks for another laugh at your expense
You wrote “You simply wouldn’t abide to the only standard you ever cared about.”
Is English your second language, or are you speaking Willardese again? Your gibberish generator might do a better job.
It might support your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Donkey.
Willard, please stop trolling.
What are you braying about, Monomaniacal Mike?
The not-warming line is all yours.
Silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Haha, almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read this : “Only those of us in the middle who follow the real science of the IPCC”
Lol
At the one end, cranks like Mike Flynn and your very sorry self, Phil. At the other, doomers.
It’s really not that complex.
Crank Willard?
Because I think increased ocean Temps are caused by greater uvb irradiation due to thin ozone layer?
At least that hypothesis is thermodynamically sound, unlike a colder atmosphere heating a warmer ocean
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“Its really not that complex.”
Too complex for you, obviously. You description of the GHE, “not cooling, slower cooling”, is admirably brief – not complex at all.
Also unbelievably silly. Cooling results in warming, does it?
Yes, Phil.
Crank:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2023-0-93-deg-c/#comment-1555132
Do you have any other rhetorical questions like that?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Does your comment have something to do with a mythical GHE which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
What are you babbling about?
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. If you don’t like the real universe, create your own. Oh, that’s where you live already, in WillyWorld?
Thanks for the information. Some o& your comments make sense – not all, but some.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Was I talking to you?
No.
Do you think I’m talking to you right now, silly sock puppet?
Keep braying!
Cheers.
Whinging Wee Willy,
You wrote “Mike Flynn,
Was I talking to you?
No”, as though I value your opinion.
Why would I value the opinion who describes the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
You may talk to whomever you like. Or talk to yourself in the mirror, if you seek someone who agrees with you.
If you need to ask somebody who you were talking to, things are not looking good. If you ask that same question of yourself, and then answer “No”, you are definitely in a world of your own.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You entertain a counterfactual –
> If you need to ask somebody
I don’t *need* to ask you anything, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willy,
You wrote “Mike Flynn,
Was I talking to you?
No”, as though I value your opinion.
Why would I value the opinion who describes the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
You may talk to whomever you like. Or talk to yourself in the mirror, if you seek someone who agrees with you.
If you need to ask somebody who you were talking to, things are not looking good. If you ask that same question of yourself, and then answer “No”, you are definitely in a world of your own.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You play dumb again –
> as though I value your opinion.
You already established that you’re a sociopath.
Why would you insist in supporting that fact furthermore?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Willard,
Don’t you like sociopaths? Are you biased and intolerant perhaps?
Are you still describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”? You are obviously biased against reality.
Carry on.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You try to deflect again –
> Dont you like sociopaths
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Silly sock puppet!
Willard,
Dont you like sociopaths? Are you biased and intolerant perhaps?
Are you still describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”? You are obviously biased against reality.
Carry on.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You wrote –
> Dont you like sociopaths?
What kind of English are you braying?
Silly sock puppet.
Willard,
Don’t you like sociopaths? Are you biased and intolerant perhaps?
Are you still describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”? You are obviously biased against reality.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn.
“Dont you like sociopaths” makes no pragmatic sense at all.
Cheers, silly sock puppet.
Willard,
Don’t you like sociopaths? Are you biased and intolerant perhaps?
Are you still describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”? You are obviously biased against reality.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“At least that hypothesis is thermodynamically sound, unlike a colder atmosphere heating a warmer ocean”
PhilJ must think what coats in winter, oven doors, multi-layer insulation do to facilitate the warming of heated bodies, is somehow not thermodynamically sound!
Because what the colder atmosphere is doing to facilitate the warming of the solar-heated ocean is the same effect.
Nate, O2 and N2 effectively provide insulation to the surface. We see that in the lapse rate. CO2 can’t provide the same insulation because it emits energy to space.
Shut up, Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666470
Clint,
“Nate, O2 and N2 effectively provide insulation to the surface. We see that in the lapse rate. CO2 cant provide the same insulation because it emits energy to space.”
N2 and O2 don’t insulate IR radiation very well because they are transparent to IR.
The amount of CO2 emitting to space is the minority, the CO2 closer to the surface is both more concentrated and more effective being opaque to IR.
So CO2 is much more effective than O2 and N2.
Willard do you have a problem with this statement you quoted:
The atmosphere does not warm the surface at all. Indeed it cannoy as a warmer surface heats the atmosphere, not the reverse..
?? What part of it do you disagree with?
That the surface warms the atmosphere and NOT the reverse is objectively true..
Nate,
“PhilJ must think what coats in winter, oven doors, multi-layer insulation do to facilitate the warming of heated bodies, is somehow not thermodynamically sound!
Because what the colder atmosphere is doing to facilitate the warming of the solar-heated ocean is the same effect.”
Hardly. Warmer air rises which both the coat and oven door retard
Increased convection cools the surface.
Try again
> do you have a problem
I have no problem with cranks, Phil.
Try again.
I see, so no intelligent response in the face of reality so you resort to insults?
Carry on..
> no intelligent
You have a knack for not insulting, Phil.
You asked for a sammich, and you got served.
Do you really think relitigating why you think an atmosphere cools a planet is worth our time?
Willard,
“Do you really think relitigating why you think an atmosphere cools a planet is worth our time?”
The Truth is always worth our time and that an colder atmosphere cools a warmer surface is obvious, the 2lot demands it.
Conduction and convection of course cool the surface and Earth with liquid water on its surface transports enormous amounts of heat to the tropopause and out to space..
Willard, please stop trolling.
> that an colder atmosphere cools a warmer surface is obvious, the 2lot demands it
According to Sky Dragon cranks, Venus is colder than Mars.
Z’obvious.
“Nate, O2 and N2 effectively provide insulation to the surface. We see that in the lapse rate. CO2 cant provide the same insulation because it emits energy to space.”
Evidence? Facts? Logic? A link to a legit source that agrees with you?
Anything? Anything at all to convince us that this argument is not BS?
Nah, we know you wont provide any. Because you never do.
You are ignoring that CO2 abs.orbs IR emitted from the surface, and emits IR from higher elevations to space.
Because it emits from COLDER high elevation CO2 to space, it emits LESS than what would be emitted from the Earth’s surface direct to space in the absence of CO2.
Oh well!
Now please, go ahead and tell me that I can’t learn and will never understand ‘Clint science’, because I must be part of a ‘cult’. or some such flimsy excuse for neither rebutting this, nor supporting your claims.
“Hardly. Warmer air rises which both the coat and oven door retard
Increased convection cools the surface.”
And multi-layer insulation is used in space, where there is only radiative heat transfer. It works to insulate spacecraft from the cold of space or the heat of the sun.
So sorry, no points Phil J, since insulating effects are NOT limited to convection!
ah yes, the real science of the IPCC.
When they do their assessments, they use 2500 reviewers to review papers and write a report. Before that report is published, the IPCC releases the Summary for Policymakers, written by 50 politically-appointed Lead Authors. The report from the 2500 is then re-written to match the Summary.
The hoi polloi making up the 2500 can protest all they want, their protests fall on deaf ears.
But, hey, wee willy is a simpleton extraordinaire. We tend to pat him on the head around here as one would pat a simple child on the head.
Mr. Asshat indulges himself once more:
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
At least they accidentally got one thing right – “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has come to the startling conclusion that climate changes.
I hope none of the participants actually received payment for stating what any reasonably intelligent 12 year old knows.
No wonder Feynman said that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Willard, please stop trolling – at least until you get better at it.
Mike Flynn always forget to quote the very next sentence –
“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.”
Silly sock puppet!
“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.”
Predict the probability distribution of that which cannot be predicted?
Yes, Willard, well worth quoting. Idiocy piled upon idiocy.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
I can’t predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match. Wonder why, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
“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.”
Predict the probability distribution of that which cannot be predicted?
Yes, Willard, well worth quoting. Idiocy piled upon idiocy.
“I cant predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match.”
You’d lose. As usual.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You assert –
> You’d lose
Do you have any Backgammon experience, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
“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.”
Predict the probability distribution of that which cannot be predicted?
Yes, Willard, well worth quoting. Idiocy piled upon idiocy.
“I can’t predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match.”
You’d lose. As usual.
You ask “Do you have any Backgammon experience . . . “? Why do you ask? Do you think I would need any?
You’d lose. As usual.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You play dumb again –
> Do you think I would need any?
Not if you believe that Backgammon is purely random. But then if you did, why would you be so sure of winning, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
“I cant predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match.”
Youd lose. As usual.
What else would anybody expect from someone who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling.”?
This is the real world, not WillyWorld.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You keep butchering –
> Youd lose. As usual.
Three mistakes in four words.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“I can’t predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match.”
Youd lose. As usual. (If you missed it, I omitted an apostrophe. It’s one of these – “‘”!
What else would anybody expect from someone who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling.”?
This is the real world, not WillyWorld.
At least you are having fun by seeing my intentional errors and omissions. You’re easily diverted, which can be quite diverting. Definitely the gift that keeps on giving!
[laughing at dimwitted GHE cultist]
Monomaniacal Mike,
You play dumb once more –
> If you missed it
I didn’t, for I told you that you butchered again.
And I didn’t miss that you’re confusing predictability and skill.
“I cant predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match.”
Youd lose. As usual. (If you missed it, I omitted an apostrophe. Its one of these “‘”!
What else would anybody expect from someone who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling.”?
This is the real world, not WillyWorld.
At least you are having fun by seeing my intentional errors and omissions. Youre easily diverted, which can be quite diverting. Definitely the gift that keeps on giving!
[laughing at dimwitted GHE cultist]
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You pontificate –
> This is the real world
What is *this*?
In the real world, there are strong Backgammon players, and there are weaklings like you, silly sock puppet.
Strong Backgammon players still can’t predict the next throw.
Cheers.
PM
“I cant predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match.”
Youd lose. As usual. (If you missed it, I omitted an apostrophe. Its one of these !
What else would anybody expect from someone who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling.”?
This is the real world, not WillyWorld.
At least you are having fun by seeing my intentional errors and omissions. Youre easily diverted, which can be quite diverting. Definitely the gift that keeps on giving!
[laughing at dimwitted GHE cultist]
In the real world, there are strong Backgammon players, and there are weaklings like you, silly sock puppet.
What is *this*?
Strong Backgammon players still cant predict the next throw.
You pontificate
Cheers.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
> This is the real world
“I cant predict dice throws at Backgammon. Yet I would bet I would beat your ass in a match.”
Youd lose. As usual. (If you missed it, I omitted an apostrophe. Its one of these !
What else would anybody expect from someone who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling.”?
This is the real world, not WillyWorld.
At least you are having fun by seeing my intentional errors and omissions. Youre easily diverted, which can be quite diverting. Definitely the gift that keeps on giving!
[laughing at dimwitted GHE cultist]
You missed more than an apostrophe, Monomaniacal Mike Flynn.
You missed the whole point.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Willard, please stop trolling.
craig t…”a Pirani gauge measures pressure not radiation. Inside it is a heated wire. Pressure is determined by comparing the heat loss to a gas to the heat loss in a vacuum.
He leaves out that a Pirani gauge must be calibrated for the gas being measured, more so at pressures found in the troposphere. Both CO2 and water vapor absorb more heat per molecule than O2 or N2″.
***
A major use of the Pirani gauge after its invention was determining a vacuum level for light bulbs. So, yes, it measures air pressure levels. That makes it perfect for measuring the effect of heat dissipation via radiation to dissipation via conduction/convection.
A key to that usage is using the resistance of the Pirani gauge filament as one leg of a Wheatstone Bridge. A meter across the mid-leg bridge resistances will monitor the bridge balance and reveal any imbalance due to a resistance change in the filament.
If we start with an evacuated tube and set the circuit up for mid-scale on the meter, then as the filament radiates and dissipates heat, the meter will deflect. There is a direct relationship between the temperature of a resistance and the current through it. The temperature will obviously drop as heat is dissipated and by measuring the current change we know the heat dissipated.
By increasing the current through the filament till the meter is again mid-scale, we know the current required to do that and can calculate the power dissipated by filament by radiation alone.
Obviously, if we now let room air into the tube, the meter will deflect farther than with radiation and by measuring the higher rate of heat dissipation we known the difference between radiation alone and radiation plus conduction/convection. We already have the rate for radiation and when it is compared to the rate for air, it is found that air dissipates heat 260 times faster than radiation alone.
Shula pointed out as an adjunct that when the filament is in an evacuated chamber, and the power is turned off, it takes forever for the filament to cool by radiation alone. When air is introduced, the filament cools quickly.
Calibration is not required when we are comparing heat dissipation in air versus dissipation in a vacuum. We are only interested in the ration between the two.
Gordon Robertson
If you knew any physics you could see Shula is crackpot. He may have studied science but now he is a crackpot. If you had any real science background you would see how poor his arguments are and reject his nonsense.
Yes the filament in a evacuated chamber of a Pirani Gauge will coll slowly. It has a very very low emissivity of maybe 0.05. (Yes Gordon that really does matter). If the filament was made of material that had and emissivity of 0.95 it would cool several times faster.
That you can’t understand the function of emissivity in radiant energy indicates that you have zero science background. You fall for crackpots because you do not have enough actual science background to see the terrible flaws in their points.
Shula starts off questioning the figures on a NASA graphic showing the Earth’s energy budget. He then claims that a Panini gauge shows that only 0.4% of the Earth’s heat loss is due to radiative energy.
The proper tool to measure longwave radiation is an infrared radiometer. As an example a soybean field in Lincoln NE on July 15, 1992 was measured to emit 400 – 500 W/m^2 (which is consistent with the NASA poster rate of 398 W/m^2.)
https://snr.unl.edu/agmet/radbal/radbal-data-example.asp#Longwave
If Shula was right, the Earth would lose a total of around 100,000 Watts per square meter, almost all through convection and conduction. That is an absurd amount of energy.
Craig T,
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Do you consider the amount of energy it lost during the last four and a half billion years, absurd, or not absurd?
As Feynman wrote “So I hope you accept Nature as She is absurd.”
I do. You?
Mike Flynn,
None of that is relevant to what Craig said.
Care to try again, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Craig T,
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Do you consider the amount of energy it lost during the last four and a half billion years, absurd, or not absurd?
As Feynman wrote “So I hope you accept Nature as She is absurd.”
I do. You?
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
Copy-pasting your comment does not make it more relevant.
Care to try again, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Craig T,
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Do you consider the amount of energy it lost during the last four and a half billion years, absurd, or not absurd?
As Feynman wrote “So I hope you accept Nature as She is absurd.”
I do. You?
Still irrelevant, Monomaniacal Mike.
Care to try again?
Silly sock puppet!
Craig T,
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Do you consider the amount of energy it lost during the last four and a half billion years, absurd, or not absurd?
As Feynman wrote “So I hope you accept Nature as She is absurd.”
I do. You?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Still irrelevant, Monomaniacal Mike.
Care to try again?
Silly sock puppet!
craig…”He then claims that a Panini [sic] gauge shows that only 0.4% of the Earths heat loss is due to radiative energy”.
***
You admitted in a previous post that a Pirani gauge measures pressure. It does, and the heat dissipation at various air pressure levels between STP and a vacuum are well documented. Shula is merely applying this data to air pressures in the atmosphere to determine the relationship of heat dissipation between radiation and conduction/convection
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Experts from the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the California State University Channel Islands say that as droughts and floods become more acute with global warming, dam-building beavers are helping stave off the worst impacts by holding back essential water that otherwise would run off or dry up.
“It may seem trite to say that beavers are a key part of a national climate action plan, but the reality is that they are a force of 1540 million highly skilled environmental engineers. We cannot afford to work against them any longer; we need to work with them,” Chris E. Jordan and Emily Fairfax wrote in their paper titled Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-beaver-emerges-as-a-climate-solving-hero/
Silly monkeys might lemur.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted “Experts from . . .”.
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, aren’t you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You assert –
> You quoted “Experts from…”.
No, I didn’t. I quoted an article.
What’s up with these four dots, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted Experts from . . . .
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
I fixed the typo. Thanks.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You keep playing dumb –
> You quoted Experts from….
Who’s Experts, and what about these four dots?
Dang.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted “Experts from . . . “.
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Hopefully, all typos and omissions fixed. Whine away if I missed something.
I suppose I should ask if you still describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, but I won’t.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You say –
> Dang.
Perhaps you’re not as much of a sociopath that you try to portray. Or perhaps you just had a Very Strict father who’s responsible for your overall antisocial manners here. Who knows?
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted “Experts from . . . “.
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Hopefully, all typos and omissions fixed. Whine away if I missed something.
I suppose I should ask if you still describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, but I won’t.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You suppose –
> I suppose I should ask if you still
Only if you’re monomaniacal, and perhaps also if you really have nothing better than to try to deflect from the point being made.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You won’t PSTer me in my thread.
Beavers build dams that slow down river currents.
According to your silly semantic argument against the greenhouse effect, they shouldn’t be able to create lakes. Yet they are.
Do you realize how silly is your silly semantic argument, silly sock puppet? Nevermind. The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans.
Cheers.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted “Experts from . . . “.
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Hopefully, all typos and omissions fixed. Whine away if I missed something.
I suppose I should ask if you still describe the mythical GHE as not cooling, slower cooling, but I wont.
You wrote –
“The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans.” Maybe you meant “beings”, but I’ll make allowances for your spelling deficiencies.
No, the point is that the weather constantly changes. Whether you look at the dynamics of the atmosphere from the viewpoint of chaos theory, or basic quantum physics, nobody can predict the effect of any changes, from any cause, to any particular outcome.
That might be why the IPCC acknowledged that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Have you any better reasons? No?
I win, it seems. You lose, as usual.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You won’t PSTer me in my thread.
Beavers build dams that slow down river currents.
According to your silly semantic argument against the greenhouse effect, they shouldnt be able to create lakes. Yet they are.
Do you realize how silly is your silly semantic argument, silly sock puppet? Nevermind. The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans.
And no, I haven’t quoted experts. The author I quoted did.
Cheers.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted Experts from . . . .
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as not cooling, slower cooling?
Hopefully, all typos and omissions fixed. Whine away if I missed something.
I suppose I should ask if you still describe the mythical GHE as not cooling, slower cooling, but I wont.
You wrote
The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans. Maybe you meant beings, but Ill make allowances for your spelling deficiencies.
No, the point is that the weather constantly changes. Whether you look at the dynamics of the atmosphere from the viewpoint of chaos theory, or basic quantum physics, nobody can predict the effect of any changes, from any cause, to any particular outcome.
That might be why the IPCC acknowledged that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Have you any better reasons? No?
I win, it seems. You lose, as usual.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You wont PSTer me in my thread.
Beavers build dams that slow down river currents.
According to your silly semantic argument against the greenhouse effect, they shouldnt be able to create lakes. Yet they are.
Do you realize how silly is your silly semantic argument, silly sock puppet? Nevermind. The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans.
And no, I havent quoted experts. The author I quoted did.
Do you have to enter the special HTML entities to bypass the blacklist, or do you keep a special text file on your iPad?
Cheers.
Monomaniacal Mike,
You insist –
> You quoted Experts from….
Are you sure you’re a native English speaker?
You don’t seem to be as attentive to gramer as you would like.
Cheers, silly sock puppet.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted “Experts from . . . “.
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Hopefully, all typos and omissions fixed. Whine away if I missed something.
I suppose I should ask if you still describe the mythical GHE as not cooling, slower cooling, but I wont.
You wrote
“The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans”. Maybe you meant beings, but Ill make allowances for your spelling deficiencies.
No, the point is that the weather constantly changes. Whether you look at the dynamics of the atmosphere from the viewpoint of chaos theory, or basic quantum physics, nobody can predict the effect of any changes, from any cause, to any particular outcome.
That might be why the IPCC acknowledged that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Have you any better reasons? No?
I win, it seems. You lose, as usual.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Monomaniacal Mike,
Your walls of words won’t protect you from the fact that skill does not rely on being able to predict the next state.
Cheers, silly sock puppet.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted “Experts from . . . “.
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Hopefully, all typos and omissions fixed. Whine away if I missed something.
I suppose I should ask if you still describe the mythical GHE as not cooling, slower cooling, but I wont.
You wrote
“The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans”. Maybe you meant beings, but Ill make allowances for your spelling deficiencies.
No, the point is that the weather constantly changes. Whether you look at the dynamics of the atmosphere from the viewpoint of chaos theory, or basic quantum physics, nobody can predict the effect of any changes, from any cause, to any particular outcome.
That might be why the IPCC acknowledged that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Have you any better reasons? No?
I win, it seems. You lose, as usual.
Willard, please stop trolling.
What are you braying about, Monomaniacal Mike?
Please give back the LLM to Mr. Asshat.
Silly sock puppet!
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted “Experts from . . . “.
I agree with Feynman that science is belief in the ignorance of experts.
Maybe even experts who wrote “Beaver: The North American freshwater climate action plan.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant wee chappie, arent you? Who else would describe the mythical GHE as not cooling, slower cooling?
Hopefully, all typos and omissions fixed. Whine away if I missed something.
I suppose I should ask if you still describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, but I won’t.
You wrote
“The point is that if beavers can alter climate, so can human beans”. Maybe you meant beings, but I’ll make allowances for your spelling deficiencies.
No, the point is that the weather constantly changes. Whether you look at the dynamics of the atmosphere from the viewpoint of chaos theory, or basic quantum physics, nobody can predict the effect of any changes, from any cause, to any particular outcome.
That might be why the IPCC acknowledged that it is not possible to predict future climate states. Have you any better reasons? No?
I win, it seems. You lose, as usual.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Silly sock puppet!
Monomaniacal Mike, what are you braying about?
To Mr. Asshat please give back the LLM.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The US govt is 34 trillion dollars in debt.
How many trillions of debt is due to US govt spending money to control global CO2?
And it and all other governments in the world has failed to control global CO2.
Their war on CO2 is like their War on Drugs.
Which has cost more, war on drugs {which they lost} or war on CO2 {which they lost}??
Is the cost been more then all the “real” wars, they have lost?
Only 34 trillion dollars?
Don’t worry – the US has a master plan – borrow their way out of debt!
Restrictions on drugs just fuel the black market, leading to unregulated consumption and, very likely, higher rates of death and other associated adverse effects. If people really want to get high, they’ll find a way to get it, legally or not.
It’s a good thing cannabis is being legalized both recreationally and medically, as it is easing this issue.
LSD is also good for you.
But there bad effects from cannabis and LSD.
Of course Fentanyl kills more people than car accidents.
And this happens because people are unaware of it, and it’s added to make better or effective {and very cheap] drug. Or people died because it causes unexpected effects. But apparently “good” for heroin user because they can use right amounts, know what they doing, and it’s cheaper.
Legalizing drugs would be something I would support, as any business selling bad drugs, can be sued of existence.
gb…the danger of fentanyl, heroin, and other opiates, even for seasoned users, is is the strength of the dose. Dealers get greedy and cut down the strength using whatever buffer is available. If a regular drug user buys from a dealer who uses the same amount of buffer each time, he is likely safe. However, if he buys from a dealer who offers a stronger drug, the dose could be fatal.
Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that can be up to 50 times stronger than heroin or morphine.
G4
https://i.ibb.co/DLSLnrm/estimated-planetary-k-in-1.png
They say near midnight is better time to watch.
I didn’t see anything about having power outages, yet.
No problems {so far, I have seen]
“Skies across the U.S. were lit in a spectacular, colorful glow at levels not seen in years or decades as massive solar flares slammed into Earth on Friday.”
https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/rare-severe-solar-storm-northern-lights-alabama
“The last time Earth experienced a Level 5 geomagnetic event, there were power outages in Sweden and damaged transformers in South Africa.”
…
SpaceX’s Starlink service warned on its website Saturday morning that it was experiencing “degraded service,” though it didn’t give further details. Yet SpaceX head Elon Musk had earlier posted on X that the Starlink satellites were under a lot of pressure due to the geomagnetic storm and were still holding up.”
I looked {for very short time period, near midnight]. It seemed there appeared to be slight red glow in the north.
I didn’t expect to see anything- the glow might have been something else.
In total, including drive time, going and returning, about 15 mins.
The moon was quite dim and low on horizon. I thought whatever was causing the moon to be dim, could be another reason for slight red glow to the north [forest fire or something}.
A sudden increase in the extent of ice in the Bering Sea.
https://i.ibb.co/FH6qBZp/r12-Bering-Sea-ts-4km.png
This thread’s podium today
Swenson: 345
Willard: 282
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team: 116
What else – just adapt.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Amazing polar lights last night ‘down to’ the Alps in North Germoney.
Last seen at this intensity in 2003.
A sharp jump in solar wind parameters.
G4 storm in progress.
https://i.ibb.co/qYyZt8w/latest2day.png
As I said on last month’s thread, it wouldn’t be a big surprise if we got another high anomaly. It’s not unusual for a high April global temp following el Nino.
What is surprising is how warm the anomaly is considering it wasn’t a super strong el Nino. The global T response to the 2015/2016 ‘super’ el Nino peaked at 0.71 C (UAH, Feb 2016). Only 7 years later and global temps have been consistently above 0.8 for 8 months running, and the latest global T peak is 0.3 C higher than the 2016 peak.
Compare that with the less than 0.1 C peak difference between 2016 and 1998 (UAH, April 1998 : 0.62) after 18 years.
The recent global T spike is surely caused by more than the el Nino on top of underlying global warming. What that is hasn’t yet een pinned down.
barry
Here are a few global temperature distributions made by the Japanese Met Agency, each for the March month:
– 2024
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2024/gridtemp202403e.png
– 2016
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2016/gridtemp201603e.png
– 1998
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1998/gridtemp199803e.png
*
The comparison speaks for itself.
barry,
Do you have a testable hypothesis for observed temperature increases?
Mike Flynn,
Look at the top of the page.
Cheers, silly sock puppet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the temperature of the surface and troposphere to increase.
It’s already been done.
I predict crap will be thrown towards the wall.
Will it get there?
Burbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the temperature of the surface and troposphere to increase.”
Except that it doesn’t you idio . Both the surface and the troposphere cool at night.
If you want to believe that your fantasy is reality, you are welcome to do so.
Carry on.
Swenson,
Nice shot, but you missed.
You point is irrelevant, because over longer periods of time than a day.
You are talking about weather, I am talking about climate.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Is this temp rise due to continues chemtrailing?
Clint R
Here is an article for you to consider.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/11/a-note-to-the-guardian-opinion-is-not-science/
This one is from the skeptic side but the point is the one to consider.
“Opinion is NOT Science”
You are as bad as the alarmist group with your blatant science denial.
All your posts are opinions. None have any evidence to support them. I have asked you for evidence, but you never provide.
You should reconsider your own opinionated posts and see yourself as the same mind as the alarmist group.
Sorry Norman, but it’s the other way around. You have NOTHING.
You can’t provide a viable description/definition of your bogus GHE.
You can’t provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
You can’t even walk around a tree!
Shut up, Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666470
Willard, please stop trolling.
Once again, we see Norman using his cult tactics.
He drops a bunch of false accusations, disappears, and relies on the cult kid to cover for him.
Norman neglected to mention that I have offered to teach him physics, several times. The only stipulation was he had to avoid his insults, false accusations, and other childish cult tactics.
But, he has no interest in reality…..
Shut up, Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666470
Yes, I calmly told Bindidon to shut up, without even a hint of anger behind the comment. So what? He richly deserved it, as do you.
Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.
Shut up, Little Willy.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“I have offered to teach him physics… ”
You might be sincere, but this is impossible.
Physics is a tightly interwoven set of idea, laid out in physics textbooks and university course. These ideas are supported by vast sets of experiments. Sure, there are always new ideas being developed around the fringes, but physics explains
* the moon rotates.
* the moon accelerates as it curves around the earth
* tidal torques exist
* time dilation happens
* N2 absorbs IR poorly and CO2 absorbs well
* irradiances add
* on and on and on …
If you are trying to explain that the moon does NOT rotate, then by definition, you are not teaching physics! Your are teaching some OTHER secret science that apparently only you (and a handful of others) know and understand.
And no, I am not going to debate textbook physics with you.
And no, acting indignant is not scientific support for your conclusions.
Tim Folkerts, please stop trolling.
Advice from fanatical GHE cultists who can’t describe the GHE is quite irrelevant, don’t you think?
Sorry Folkerts, but you’re STILL involved in fraud.
But, I enjoy correcting cult id10ts, so here goes:
* the moon rotates. Wrong. Moon only orbits. It does NOT spin. Earth both orbits and spins.
* the moon accelerates as it curves around the earth. Correct. Moon changes both speed and direction during its orbit. All particles of Moon have the same instantaneous velocity, as it does NOT spin.
* tidal torques exist. Earth’s gravity can not create a torque on Moon.
* time dilation happens. (Not relevant here.)
* N2 absorbs IR poorly and CO2 absorbs well. N2 absorbs IR VERY poorly, and CO2 only absorbs around certain wavelengths
* irradiances add. Irradiances don’t simply add as your fraud (315 + 315 = 625) claims. If that fraud were true, you could boil water with ice cubes.
“All particles of Moon have the same instantaneous velocity
WRONG.
The far side travels in a circle of greater radius than the near side, so it travels a greater distance in the same time. ie. it has a greater speed.
DUH.
.
.
“Earths gravity can not create a torque on Moon.
Not any more it can’t, now that its off-centre centre of mass has been aligned with the earth by continual torquing over billions of years. (And its even further off-centre centre of gravity within earth’s gravitational field.)
Ant, you can’t understand “instantaneous velocity”.
And Earth can not torque Moon, ever. There is no evidence Moon ever spun. That’s just one of your cult beliefs.
I didn’t expect you to understand. Thanks for proving me right.
Like Graham D. Warner would say if he was not gaslighting –
Shut up, Puffman.
“All particles of Moon have the same instantaneous velocity, as it does NOT spin.”
Clint is seeking ridicule again. Maybe he should bet on horses that prefer to run on the outside of the track!
Nate, if you cult kids believe parts of a solid object are moving faster that other parts, have at it.
Your ignorance and immaturity just add to the fun.
Shut up, Puffman.
Clint,
2*pi*(R-r) < 2*pi*(R+r}
Your bad math skillz are showing.
bob, if you cult kids believe parts of a solid object are moving faster that other parts, have at it.
Your ignorance and immaturity just add to the fun.
Clint,
That’s part of the definition of rotation Clint.
Some proof will be on the TV soon, at the Olympics, specifically track and field.
If parts of a solid object are moving at different velocities, that indicates that the body is rotating.
“* irradiances add. Irradiances dont simply add as your fraud (315 + 315 = 625) claims. If that fraud were true, you could boil water with ice cubes.”
This has been debunked 47 times, yet ignoramus Clint repeats it anyway! Why?
Ice cubes can NEVER produce TWO irradiances of 315 W/m^2 striking the same location on a surface, because they would have to be on top of each other.
Basic geometry eludes Clint.
Now because I’ve again pointed out the obvious flaws with his claims, he will have no answers, but he will tell me I must be part of a ‘cult’, or I can’t learn, or some other ad-hom.
It’s an opinion that a trace gas can warm a planet. There is not a shred of science to back the opinion. It’s an opinion that the Moon rotate exactly once per orbit. Again, not a shred of evidence to back the opinion.
Shut up, Mr. Asshat.
Willard,
That’s a good fanatical GHE cultist tactic, I suppose.
In case of running out of facts, just say “Shut up!”.
If you feel like a change, you could always say “Wow, just wow!”, or “D’oh!”, or maybe “Not even wrong!”.
Do you think that would make people more appreciative of your blinding intellect?
[he really is that dimwitted]
Shut up, Mike Flynn.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666740
Willard,
You wrote “Shut up, Mike Flynn.”
Thats a good fanatical GHE cultist tactic, I suppose.
In case of running out of facts, just say Shut up!.
If you feel like a change, you could always say “Wow, just wow!”, or “Doh!”, or maybe “Not even wrong!”.
Do you think that would make people more appreciative of your blinding intellect?
[he really is that dimwitted]
Mike Flynn,
You suppose wrong.
That’s a fellow Dragon crank tactic:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666740
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Daytime maximum temperature in Poland up to 20 C, at 5 am at ground -2 C. Dry air is transparent to radiation.
https://i.ibb.co/pXzhyC2/ventusky-temperature-5cm-20240512t0300-52n18e.jpg
Most of the ovaries on fruit trees have already frozen.
“Most of the ovaries on fruit trees have already frozen.”
Sad.
Starlink soars: SpaceXs satellite internet surprises analysts with $6.6 billion revenue projection
Quilty Space: Starlinks achievements over the past three years are mind-blowing
Sandra Erwin May 9, 2024
https://spacenews.com/starlink-soars-spacexs-satellite-internet-surprises-analysts-with-6-6-billion-revenue-projection/
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“Quilty Space estimates the cost of Starlink satellites has evolved significantly. While the first generation V1 satellites were produced for around $200,000 each, the latest V2 mini version carries a heftier price tag of $800,000, but that reflects its increased size and capabilities (from 260 kilograms to 730 kilograms).
Looking ahead, Quilty projects the future V3 satellite will weigh in at a substantial 1,500 kilograms and cost roughly $1.2 million.”
SpaceX does satellites like it does rocket. Or lots beta testing, and continuing make different versions, later ones are bigger and better, and start cheap as possible, and built up. First ones boilerplate, second ones might also be boilerplate, and maybe at some point it’s a rocket {or satellite}. Or starship still testing and still boilerplate, at some point we get a rocket, which might also be test version {maybe more expensive also], but at some we get a falcon-9 [and/or falcon heavy] which remains the same and flies a lot.
So 52 at .2 million is 10.4 million for 52 satellites. 10.4 million for 1 satellite, is very cheap. And 52 satellite cost 30 million to put into orbit. 50 million for a satellite and rocket launch is very cheap. Gets thousands of them, then makes better satellite- makes thousands of them, but it some point they will be replace [or added to] with better satellite, which could be launched next year with a boilerplate Starship.
What going to happen, once there is actually a starship rocket??
Big explosions inhibit cosmic rays from hitting Earth.
So, we could take 1/2 of nuclear weapons in the world, and put them in 3 piles on the farside of the Moon.
So, one pile, and next pile is 3 three times bigger, and another one 4 times bigger.
And going to blow up the three times bigger, wait 30 seconds, then blow up the one, wait 10 seconds, and then blow up the 4 times bigger pile.
And thereafter, we can nuclear waste in these 3 craters. And maybe later, repeat, take 1/2 of world nuclear weapons and have in the 3 groups.
And could send a message. 3 + 1 = 4 or pi.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
ELDORADO DO SUL, Brazil (AP) – More rain started coming down on Saturday in Brazils already flooded Rio Grande do Sul state, where many of those remaining are poor people with limited ability to move to less dangerous areas.
More than 15 centimeters (nearly six inches) of rain could fall over the weekend and will probably worsen flooding, according to the Friday afternoon bulletin from Brazil’s national meteorology institute. It said there is also a high likelihood that winds will intensify and water levels rise in the Patos lagoon next to the state capital, Porto Alegre, and the surrounding area.
https://apnews.com/article/brazil-floods-climate-change-inequality-8a1d0e3a00bfd9a5b7918e62d6aab02a
Willard, please stop trolling.
Now for some fact to replace wee willy’s propaganda.
“Floods are a common occurrence in Brazilian cities. Every year, thousands of regions nationwide suffer from deluges…”
https://brazilian.report/liveblog/brazil-floods/2024/05/08/porto-alegre-flood-protection-systems-worked/
They had similar flood in 1941 and built flood dykes to handle that level of flooding. However, some flood gates failed, likely due to a lack of maintenance.
According to Mr. Asshat, floods kill thousands of Brazilians every year. It also displaces hundreds of thousand Brazilians every year.
He will produce that statistic any time soon.
Willard,
You haven’t been taking my advice to improve your English skills, have you?
Maybe you could replace “He will produce that statistic any time soon.” with something grammatically correct?
You dont need to thank me, it’s my pleasure as usual.
While you’re at it, you might care to amplify your description of the GHE. “not cooling, slower cooling” is not terribly informative, is it?
Carry on. You are performing admirably as a typical fanatical GHE cultist.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Silly sock puppet!
Willard,
You havent been taking my advice to improve your English skills, have you?
Maybe you could replace “He will produce that statistic any time soon.” with something grammatically correct?
You don’t need to thank me, its my pleasure as usual.
While youre at it, you might care to amplify your description of the GHE. “not cooling, slower cooling” is not terribly informative, is it?
Carry on. You are performing admirably as a typical fanatical GHE cultist.
Mike Flynn,
You go for self-defeat –
> You havent
Dont you have any self-awareness, silly sock puppet?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard seems to think he owns the blog. Definitely strange, is Willard.
He can’t come up with anything rational, so says silly things like –
“Mike Flynn,
Youre in my thread.
Silly sock puppet!”
Well, I suppose it diverts attention away from Willard’s description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”. Willard now tries to claim that he never described the GHE at all, without acknowledging that he can’t describe it now! A very mysterious effect indeed!
Ah, the wonders of the fanatical GHE cultists’ so-called thought processes. Complete refusal to accept that the reason none of them can describe the mythical GHE is because it’s nonsense.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Just a lot of ignorant and gullible people, who abandoned rational thinking in their desire for personal recognition and power.
Willard is but one example, with his ever more bizarre attempts to convince others to value his opinions. I feel slightly sorry for the poor chap, reduced to delusions of grandeur, convinced that others should consider him to be wise and powerful – rather than the reality that he is stupid and impotent.
That is my opinion of course, and worth precisely as much as anyone else’s.
No Mikey, that would be you. All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the Jan 6 insurrectionists.
Willard seems to think he owns the blog. Definitely strange, is Willard.
He cant come up with anything rational, so says silly things like
“Mike Flynn,
Youre in my thread.
Silly sock puppet!”
Well, I suppose it diverts attention away from Willards description of the GHE as not cooling, slower cooling. Willard now tries to claim that he never described the GHE at all, without acknowledging that he cant describe it now! A very mysterious effect indeed!
Ah, the wonders of the fanatical GHE cultists so-called thought processes. Complete refusal to accept that the reason none of them can describe the mythical GHE is because its nonsense.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Just a lot of ignorant and gullible people, who abandoned rational thinking in their desire for personal recognition and power.
Willard is but one example, with his ever more bizarre attempts to convince others to value his opinions. I feel slightly sorry for the poor chap, reduced to delusions of grandeur, convinced that others should consider him to be wise and powerful rather than the reality that he is stupid and impotent.
That is my opinion of course, and worth precisely as much as anyone else’s
AQ, please stop trolling.
No Mike Flynn.
That would be you.
All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.
You wrote –
“No Mike Flynn.
That would be you.
All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.”
I’m trying to help you. What’s supposed to happen? Will a description of the GHE appear in fiery letters across the sky?
It would be a change from your GHE description “not cooling, slower cooling” which is about as silly a description as the other attempts to describe something that doesnt exist!
Maybe you could call me Mike Flynn, and tell me I’m a sociopath? Would that help?
Carry on.
All Mike Flynn can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.
Silly sock puppet!
Willard lashes out –
“All Mike Flynn can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.
Silly sock puppet!”
This is the guy who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
What a guy!
All Mike Flynn can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.
Silly sock puppet!
“No Mike Flynn.
That would be you.
All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.”
Willard displays his vast scientific knowledge. Only joking, Willard describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
What a dummy is Willard!
Mike Flynn proves once again that he is a sociopath.
Silly sock puppet!
“No Mike Flynn.
That would be you.
All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.”
Willard displays his vast scientific knowledge. Only joking, Willard describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
What a dummy is Willard!
All Mike Flynn can do is smear his crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.
Silly sock puppet!
“All Mike Flynn can do is smear his crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.
Silly sock puppet!”
Thank you for your comment. It will receive the consideration it so richly deserves.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Warmth for katz
https://youtu.be/AtM50vVSfWc
Antonin Qwerty has lost the plot, too.
He cannot describe the GHE, and is reduced to uttering inanities like –
“No Mikey, that would be you. All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the Jan 6 insurrectionists.”
I suppose he thinks that there are many out there even more stupid and gullible than himself, who value his opinions. He might be hard-pressed to find any who would willingly admit that they are more stupid and gullible than he.
At least Willard described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”. AQ thinks he is far too intelligent to admit to any description at all! More intelligent than Willard, anyway. AQ has set himself an admirably low bar.
Still no GHE. Just fanatical GHE cultists.
Swenson,
How come a pot of water on a stove heats up faster if you put a lid on it.
Maybe because you slow the rate of cooling of the pot of water.
Bob,
Berry has shown that most of the CO2 increase from 280ppm to now is due to natural emissions. Man can only be responsible for about 30ppm of the increase. Happer has shown that a doubling of CO2 will only cause about 0.6C rise. Another doubling about 0.3C rise. Greenhouses keep their CO2 levels at about 1000 ppm or higher to promote plant growth. So, it seems higher CO2 is mostly a positive effect. I’m more concerned about a colder planet than a warmer planet. We can feed people when it is warm.
Stephen,
“Berry has shown that most of the CO2 increase from 280ppm to now is due to natural emissions.”
Berry is a crank, all the increase in CO2 is due to humans,
“Happer has shown that a doubling of CO2 will only cause about 0.6C rise. Another doubling about 0.3C rise.”
We already have 1.5 C increase, so Happer is wrong.
“Greenhouses keep their CO2 levels at about 1000 ppm or higher to promote plant growth.””
No, they keep it that high because plants will use it up so fast, that that is the best level to keep it from going below 259ppm.
“So, it seems higher CO2 is mostly a positive effect.”
Have you seen the weather lately, it is getting bad and only will get worse,
“Im more concerned about a colder planet than a warmer planet.”
I am concerned that we are getting closer to the knee in the water vapor pressure curve.
“We can feed people when it is warm.”
I am not so sure about that.
But what did all that have to do with what I posted?
When you say “shown” you of course mean “he has given me the answer I want, so I will accept his claim without having any understanding of HOW he has ‘shown’ that”.
Here we see yet another 90 year old who misrepresents both himself and science in a last-ditch attempt to make a name for himself. He has another “paper” where he claims that when spinning a mass on a string, angular momentum is not conserved. Whacko …
So, those are your responses? My God.
He won’t help you.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“How come a pot of water on a stove heats up faster if you put a lid on it.”
Why do you ask? Are you ignorant?
Put a pot of water on a stove. Its temperature changes not at all, unless the pot is colder or hotter than the stove.
Put a pot of water in the Sun. Put a shiny metal lid on it. You are a strange fanatical GHE cultist, arent you?
Have you improved on your description of the GHE – “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”?
No? Ah well, Im not surprised.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Have you lost your footing?
Silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Still didn’t answer the question.
So, I’ll tell you, it slows the cooling of the pot being heated by the stove, so it increases in temperature faster.
Slower cooling can actually be heating.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
The greenhouse effect is a European thing.
They wondered how Europe was so warm {it’s not that warm, but they thought it should colder}.
But that was a long time ago, and everyone now knows the ocean warms Europe.
Mike Flynn has admitted being a sock puppet –
> No, I am Mike Flynn
In the same comment he also admitted being a sociopath.
Silly sock puppet!
Willard is going mad –
He is saying that Mike Flynn admitted being Mike Flynn (to humour a madman). Well, that would surprise nobody, would it?
He also said that in the same comment, Mike Flynn also admitted being a sociopath, but can’t quote him (for reasons of privacy, perhaps?).
That’s all well and good, and maybe Willard is hoping for applause and adulation, but in my opinion, he is just trying to divert attention from his description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Here’s another sample of Willard demonstrating his intellectual level (full comment) –
“No Mike Flynn.
That would be you.
All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.”
The fanatical GHE cultists seem to be suffering some sort of collective mental collapse, and dribbling pointless nonsense.
[laughing at unbalanced cultists]
Mike Flynn has admitted being a sock puppet –
> No, I am Mike Flynn
In the same comment he also admitted being a sociopath.
Silly sock puppet!
Willard is going mad
He is saying that Mike Flynn admitted being Mike Flynn (to humour a madman). Well, that would surprise nobody, would it?
He also said that in the same comment, Mike Flynn also admitted being a sociopath, but cant quote him (for reasons of privacy, perhaps?).
Of course, Willard can’t explain his fixation with “Mike Flynn”. Or sociopaths, for that matter.
Thats all well and good, and maybe Willard is hoping for applause and adulation, but in my opinion, he is just trying to divert attention from his description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Heres another sample of Willard demonstrating his intellectual level (full comment)
“No Mike Flynn.
That would be you.
All you can do is smear your crap all over the whole page, just like the other Sky Dragon cranks, especially Puffman and Graham D. Warner.”
The fanatical GHE cultists seem to be suffering some sort of collective mental collapse, and dribbling pointless nonsense.
[laughing at Willard who is now at a complete loss]
Mike Flynn has admitted being a sock puppet –
> No, I am Mike Flynn
In the same comment he also admitted being a sociopath, something he confirms in various parts of his last comment.
Silly sock puppet!
Willard,
I’ll help you out –
“Mike Flynn has admitted being a sock puppet
> No, I am Mike Flynn
In the same comment he also admitted being a sociopath, something he confirms in various parts of his last comment.
Silly sock puppet!”
Woo-hoo! A sociopath! How exciting is that! Is that as good as being a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat like Michael,Mann?
Are you scared of sock puppets or sociopaths? What about Mike Flynn?
You’re just a wee bit unbalanced, aren’t you? Are you going to tell me “Shut up!”?
Maybe you can repeat your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
[he’s definitely disintegrating]
Mike Flynn has admitted being a sock puppet –
> No, I am Mike Flynn
In the same comment he also admitted being a sociopath, something he confirms in various parts of his last comment.
Silly sock puppet!
Willard,
Ill help you out
“Mike Flynn has admitted being a sock puppet
> No, I am Mike Flynn
In the same comment he also admitted being a sociopath, something he confirms in various parts of his last comment.
Silly sock puppet!”
Woo-hoo! A sociopath! How exciting is that! Is that as good as being a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat like Michael Mann?
You could also accuse me of being ant-Semitic, homophobic, or not being a fan of really cheap wine. Go your hardest, Willard – my care factor remains zero, you idiot.
Are you scared of sock puppets or sociopaths? What about Mike Flynn?
Youre just a wee bit unbalanced, arent you? Are you going to tell me “Shut up!”?
Maybe you can repeat your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
[hes definitely disintegrating]
Mike Flynn pretends he is helping out.
How can the silliest sock puppet in the history of Climateball be of any help?
Ah, I see. By admitting using a sock puppet –
> I am Mike Flynn
And by admitting being a little sociopath in the same comment, perhaps?
Silly sock puppet!
Ever more clearly demonstrating his fragile mental state, Willard waffles –
“Mike Flynn pretends he is helping out.
How can the silliest sock puppet in the history of Climateball be of any help?
Ah, I see. By admitting using a sock puppet
> I am Mike Flynn
And by admitting being a little sociopath in the same comment, perhaps?
Silly sock puppet!”
Faced with his peculiar description of the GHE, “not cooling, slower cooling”, Willard is reduced to dribbling pointless and irrelevant nonsense.
Either that or telling people to “Shut up!”.
Willard could probable provide idiocy to at least two villages which have lost their idiot – possibly more.
[fanatical GHE cultist showing definite signs of mental disintegration ]
Mike Flynn tries to be helpful –
> I am Mike Flynn
It took him a few years, but he finally admits commenting under a sock puppet.
Silly sock puppet!
You are a monkey.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666282
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
If you knew any physics you could see Shula is crackpot. He may have studied science but now he is a crackpot. If you had any real science background you would see how poor his arguments are and reject his nonsense.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman has been playing on his keyboard, again.
He’s such a child.
Shut up, Puffman:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666740
Willard, please stop trolling.
A strong geomagnetic storm continues. The speed of the solar wind has further increased to 900 km/s.
https://i.ibb.co/cNhSvCY/estimated-planetary-k-in-2.png
https://i.ibb.co/m8v1VWy/latest2day-1.png
The geomagnetic storm will trigger a latitudinal jet stream in the Atlantic and Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/fC2NHbM/ventusky-wind-300hpa-20240512t0500.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/nBLkdgb/ventusky-wind-300hpa-20240512t0500-1.jpg
Here’s another fanatical GHE cultist fantasizing-
“EVERYONE here has “described the GHE” to you at some point, including me. You just provide a typical snarky say-nothing response then pretend ad infinitum your question has never been answered.”
Some of the alleged descriptions – “not cooling, slower cooling”, “a stack of blankets”, “The GHE works like insulation but of radiant energy not conduction.”, “I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.” – except that he did, of course.
I rather like Gavin Schmidt, who declined to describe the GHE at all, but “defined” it as the difference between two temperature guesses – 33 C.
All completely pointless anyway. As the IPCC stated, it is not possible to predict future climate states. And dreams about “stopping climate change” are just mental aberrations – climate changes, whether nutters want it to or not!
Antonin Qwerty, for example, refuses to describe the GHE. That way, he tries to ensure that nobody points out how silly his “description” is. How clever is that?
[laughter ensued]
Swenson,
What is a climate state and why are they not predictable.
By the way, I know the answer, just wondering why you continue to spam the site, with that half quote, which has nothing to do with predicting things that are not climate states.
Because you can predict things that are not climate states fairly accurately.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“What is a climate state and why are they not predictable.
By the way, I know the answer, . . . ”
That’s called a gotcha, bobby. A childish device employed by fanatical GHE cultists to make themselves look foolish, although they think that demonstrating their unhelpfulness makes them look clever.
You compound your foolishness by writing “Because you can predict things that are not climate states fairly accurately.”
That’s a completely irrelevant and meaningless statement, isn’t it? The future is unpredictable by definition – it hasnt happened yet.
You are no doubt confusing assumption with prediction. Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong. I assume you will be just as confused tomorrow, but of course you may die in the meantime. Who knows?
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
How can a meaningless statement be completely irrelevant, again?
Silly sock puppet!
Swenson,
If you don’t know what a climate state is, how do you know what it means for future climate states to be unpredictable?
So you are just blathering on and spreading Maypo all over the room.
The fact that the future has not happened doesn’t mean you can’t make predictions, humans do that all the time, don’t you?
But you are a liar, who is going to believe you anyway.
Even if you some how manage to say something true.
Bobby,
You wrote –
“If you dont know what a climate state is, how do you know what it means for future climate states to be unpredictable?”
Why would you think that I don’t know what a climate state is?
It doesnt matter – the future is unpredictable. It hasnt happened yet. For example, I assume you will be just as stupid in the future as you are now, but I cannot be certain. Maybe miracles do happen.
You might even decide that writing “Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.” does not indicate a sound grasp of physical reality.
You might as well keep trying to troll, even though you are not very good at it.
Swenson,
Still don’t know what a climate state is?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
April 2024 Globally, according to NASA, had a temperature anomaly of +0.70C vs 1991/2020 baseline (+1.32 vs 1951/1980) and was the hottest April on record and was 0.19C warmer than the second warmest April 2020.
Caucasus and East Asia had exceptionally high anomalies.
I hope people don’t blame this on cleaning up particulates in the atmosphere.
I like clean air…and warmth.
Shut up, Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666740
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://youtu.be/chhcwk4-esM
“A visualization created on a NASA supercomputer takes the viewer on a one-way plunge beyond the event horizon of a black hole.”
More amateur graphic programmers who can’t get work in the movies.
Good enough for Government work.
You can see the immediate effect of a strong geomagnetic storm on the strengthening of the southern polar vortex.
https://i.ibb.co/WcKTwXh/time-pres-HGT-ANOM-AMJ-SH-2024.png
On this Mother’s Day 2024:
A life lesson for all ages:
The way to discuss scientific issues is not by belittling those who rebut your claims, but to politely engage with them, check their facts, and check their sources. Let them check yours. It’s more mature and useful than calling them names.
Stay away from personalities and imaginary grievances and stick to the science.
Yea. You’re a great example of that, huh?
Walter R. Hogle,
Shut up.
More Mother’s Day wisdom just for walterrh03:
Before you post a comment, imagine your mother looking over your shoulder reading everything you type.
Ark, that would only work if one’s mother had any sense of propriety.
That obviously wouldn’t help the cult children that tr0ll here.
Or do you give silly willy, Nate, Ball4, Norman, Bindi, and the rest, a pass?
Puffman,
Shut up.
Arkady and Willard, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 858.9 km/sec
density: 0.64 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 12 May 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 148
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 214 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 23.09×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -12.0% Low
8 numbered spots, 1 spot mid way not numbered yet. None coming or going to farside
Now for the actual sunspot count for May 12:
186
Solar wind
speed: 732.0 km/sec
density: 2.90 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 13 May 24
Sunspot number: 186
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 222 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.27×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -10.0% Low
48-hr change: -4.0%
12 numbered spot, “mid way spot”: 3676, and a new spot close going to farside, 3677. And 3678 and 3679 came from farside, with 2 not numbered spot, yet, following 3678. The Big spot probably won’t leave nearside within a day- or nothing leaving to farside,
“26.27×10^10 W Hot” is hottest thermosphere got in this cycle, more year ago, it peaked at about 24 x10^10.
Anyways it, finally got Hot.
“When the thermosphere warms, it expands, literally increasing the radius of Earths atmosphere. This expansion increases aerodynamic drag on satellites in low-Earth orbit, which can bring them down prematurely. When the thermosphere cools, it shrinks; satellites get a reprieve.”
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2022/03/23/what-is-tci/
There is graph there. Most of Max get hot early in their\ cycle. And according to graph, 24 didn’t reach Hot. And cycle 20 didn’t either.
Anyways if get prolonged Hot, That will clear out more space debris.
And starlink satellite had problems earlier in 2023, hopefully they allowed for it this for their recent launches where the satellite are just beginning to climb to their higher operational orbits.
Solar wind
speed: 563.1 km/sec
density: 2.03 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 14 May 24
Sunspot number: 207
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 215 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.12×10^10 W Hot
Max: 49.4×1010 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×1010 W Cold (02/2009)
Updated 13 May 2024
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.5% Low
Updated 14 May 2024 @ 0700 UT
“Earth-facing sunspot sunspot AR3676 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares”
12 numbered spots. 3664 [other X-class spot] is leaving to farside.
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
13 May – 08 June 2024
Solar activity is expected to remain at moderate to high levels
through the forecast period. Region 3664 will rotate off the visible
disk by 14-15 May, and another 10 regions will depart the visible
disk between 16 and 23 May. This will lead to a relative lull in
activity compared to the past week. However, a couple of regions
rotating on will maintain the potential for at least moderate
activity. Region 3663 is expected to return on the 23rd and Region
3664 on the 28th of May, with a significant increase in the threat
of high activity.
There is a chance for proton events at geosynchronous orbit,
particularly with the return of Region 3664.”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Solar wind
speed: 540.0 km/sec
density: 12.91 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 14 May 24
Sunspot number: 185
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 215 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.59×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -8.5% Low
The picture of sun hasn’t changed yet, at the site.
Or picture shows 3664 is still on nearside.
I would guess when picture changes 3664 will have left, explaining in part the lower sunspot number. It could change within couple hours.
Solar wind
speed: 526.5 km/sec
density: 6.90 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 15 May 24
Sunspot number: 185
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 220 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.59×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.0% Low
So, within 2 hours, so 3664 did leave, and 12 numbered spot. And spot appear mid way and in southern hemisphere, which hasn’t numbered [it may grow bigger or fade]. No spots leaving within a day, an spot coming from farside, yet.
Btw, latest NOAA prediction:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/noaa-forecasts-quicker-stronger-peak-solar-activity
It not quite the same as I was thinking of, but it’s easy to find.
So predicted max range is 137 to 173.
And Jan to Oct 2024,
The one I was thinking illustrated possiblity toward earlier as Jan 2024 early in this year but also the later [Oct 2024].
This of course referred to blue line which is now 124.8
And as said, it hasn’t been disproven yet.
And I thought by now, it would have already been disproven.
If May is 160 {and it’s possible} it helps- delay it.
But I would say it needs months with 150 or more. And if so, by fall 2024, it could look pretty good.
But I tend to think their earlier might end up closer to reality.
So blue line is 124.8 for Oct 2023, so we need 3 months to raise the blue line in Jan 2024.
Of course their range is Jan to Oct 2024.
So you could wait 6 or more months, of having some hope.
But if still hoping in 6 months, it seems a better hope is double peak {which is not their latest prediction}. There always hope for double peak- like solar cycle 24 double peak.
But 160 this month and/or next month can give hope by the time of fall of 2024. Hope now, and give hope later.
Solar wind
speed: 449.6 km/sec
density: 6.24 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 16 May 24
Sunspot number: 173
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 216 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 26.70×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -7.1% Low
12 numbered spot. 1 leaving. And cluster of 3 or more spots coming from farside, So, it seems, tomorrow should closer to a 200 sunspot number.
A planet does not emit at a SINGLE temperature.
— And,
two planets with the same mean surface temperature (Tmean) may emit dramatically different amounts of INFRARED radiative energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Familiar facts.
All planets have surfaces which vary in temperature with time and latitude. This why you sum the energy radiating from different parts of the surface to measure and calculate the average flux and the total IR energy output.
For the same average flux a larger planet with a larger surface area will emit a larger total IR energy output.
This will be the same whether you apply conventional physics of your physics.
Your point?
Wrong again Ent. Fluxes do not average.
You’re STILL treating flux as energy. You can’t learn.
Exercise for the student.
How do you measure and/or calculate the total number of Joules leaving the Earth as infrared radiation?
It can’t be done Ent. All you can do is guess, estimate, assume.
You would end up with something maybe +/- 25 W/m², which makes the EEI completely bogus.
EM,
You’re being stupid and patronising again.
You wrote “Exercise for the student.
How do you measure and/or calculate the total number of Joules leaving the Earth as infrared radiation?”
Are you really stupid enough to believe that providing a realistic answer to your ill-posed question is possible?
You can’t even answer your own question, can you?
That would make you a pretentious idiot, trying to appear superior.
Feel free to demonstrate that you are not, in fact, completely out of your depth.
Mike Flynn,
EM was not asking you.
There’s no point in asking you anything.
At best it’d be for rhetorical effect.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
EM,
Youre being stupid and patronising again.
You wrote “Exercise for the student.
How do you measure and/or calculate the total number of Joules leaving the Earth as infrared radiation?”
Are you really stupid enough to believe that providing a realistic answer to your ill-posed question is possible?
You cant even answer your own question, can you?
That would make you a pretentious idiot, trying to appear superior.
Feel free to demonstrate that you are not, in fact, completely out of your depth.
Clint,
Flux is watts/square meter
(joules/sec)/square meter
Joules being the SI standard unit of energy.
Two planets of the same size with the same mean surface temperature (Tmean) may emit dramatically different amounts of INFRARED radiative energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
Two planets with the same mean surface temperature may emit, on the average surface area, may emit dramatically different amounts of IR outgoing EM energy.
Moon’s average surface temperature is Tmoon = 220 K
Mars’ average surface temperature is Tmars = 210 K
Moon’s average surface Albedo a =0,11
Mars’ average surface Albedo a =0,25
It can be demonstrated that for the same Albedo Mars and Moon would have had the same average surface temperature.
The solar flux on Moon is So =1361W/m^2
The solar flux on Mars is S =586W/m^2
It is obvious, that for the same average surface temperature, the emitted amounts of energy from Moon, on the average surface area, are dramatically higher than the emitted amounts of energy from Mars.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
bob looked up the units of flux. He found that “energy” was included in the mix. So now he believes he’s proven that flux is energy!
That’s just more evidence the children don’t understand any of this.
“Speed” has units of distance per time. But, speed is NOT distance. If someone asks how far is it to the next town, you don’t say “40 mph”.
bob will STILL not understand….
Clint,
Speed is meters per second.
Flux is joules per second per meters squared.
You don’t seem to understand that.
Just because speed is not distance does not mean flux is not energy.
Now, if Moon had Earth’s Albedo, Moon’s average surface temperature would have been 206,7 K.
So, 288K – 206,7K = 81,4C difference.
And here we have the opposite example:
Two planets emitting the same amounts of IR outgoing EM energy, may have dramatically different average surface temperatures.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In the past 8 months EVERY MONTH Maldives broke the national heat record and did it several times each month. Endless record heat 24/7: Nights are always 29/30C and super humid.
https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1788200999686943098
Said twitter
Teh Tweeter is not a thing that says things.
“Endless record heat 24/7:”
No need to panic.
Turn your air conditioner up. Or go to Antarctica.
Swenson
How naive. Only an American would assume that everyone in the Third World has an air conditioner.
Mike Flynn is an Aussie, EM.
The resident fanatical GHE cultists are now reduced to assumptions about nationality, or place of residence, or something else quite irrelevant.
I don’t blame them. One describes the GHE as “a stack of blankets”, the other as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Not terribly bright, either of them.
Oh well, I’ll humour them and agree that I am an American, and an Aussie. It will be interesting to see if that advances their understanding of physics.
I’ve agreed with Willard that I am Mike Flynn, and it doesn’t seem to have made him any more intelligent. He’s declared me to be a sociopath, but nobody seems to be terribly concerned about Willard’s opinion.
I certainly feel no threat from the dribblings of an idiot with no power to affect me.
His mental deficiencies are his responsibility.
Mike Flynn continues to bray, but what?
He’s so confused. Can’t even recall having described the greenhouse effect. Keeps asking after been spood fed more than a thousand times.
Sky Dragon cranks have little else.
Please bear with him.
The resident fanatical GHE cultists are now reduced to assumptions about nationality, or place of residence, or something else quite irrelevant.
I dont blame them. One describes the GHE as “a stack of blankets”, the other as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Not terribly bright, either of them.
Oh well, Ill humour them and agree that I am an American, and an Aussie. It will be interesting to see if that advances their understanding of physics.
Ive agreed with Willard that I am Mike Flynn, and it doesnt seem to have made him any more intelligent. Hes declared me to be a sociopath, but nobody seems to be terribly concerned about Willards opinion.
I certainly feel no threat from the dribblings of an idiot with no power to affect me.
His mental deficiencies are his responsibility.
Mike Flynn is at least open about using a sock puppet –
> I am Mike Flynn.
He is still confused about having admitted being a sociopath.
One thing at a time.
Swenson, or do you now prefer Mike Flynn?
“Ive agreed with Willard that I am Mike Flynn, and it doesnt seem to have made him any more intelligent.”
So, you are admitting that you have lied.
Baffled bobdroege wrote –
“So, you are admitting that you have lied.”
About what, precisely? Why do you care?
Would it make you any less stupid?
Here’s bumbling bobby at possibly not his finest –
“adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”
Fanatical GHE cultism writ large! I await with bated breath for bobdroege to describe the GHE! Only joking, it’s pointless waiting for the impossible to occur.
Swenson,
You lied about not being Mike Flynn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
There is an experiment to educate those who desire to be educated on the moon question. Take a cup of water and put something on the surface to float. Now hold the cup in front of you and spin around a few times. Observe what the floating object is doing. Then, before you get dizzy (some of you are already dizzy), stop and observe the final motion of the floating object. This is not a perfect experiment because the water has friction with the glass. A smaller object in the center will work better.
Tim S, what in the world are you trying to prove?
That non-spinner physics is false.
Hate is for haters, Ent.
Haters are those that reject reality.
I guess Tim S. forgot what he was trying to prove….
Clint R
“Haters are those that reject reality. ”
Like yourself?
I’m not the one that claims passenger jets fly backward, child.
Clint,
He has more experimental evidence to share.
Do the experiment and see what happens.
Or, answer the following question:
Why do you get dizzy on a merry go round?
Sitting on a merry go round, you are not rotating, just like the chalk circle next to you.
tim…we have seen all sorts of thought experiments. How about using the physic’s definition of rotation and use that to prove your point. Good Luck!!!
Bumbling bobby tries for the gotcha.
He wrote –
“Why do you get dizzy on a merry go round?”
I don’t. Why do you think I should? Do you spend a lot of time on merry go rounds?
At least poor bob now admits the chalk circle is NOT rotating.
It took him years to learn that simple reality.
Clint,
I was being sarcastic.
Why do you get dizzy on a merry go round?
Swenson,
You would get dizzy if I was spinning the merry go round for you.
“You would get dizzy if I was spinning the merry go round for you.”
Luckily for me, your fantasies are not reality.
Unluckily for you, you think your fantasies are real.
It really makes no difference, does it?
The GHE is still a myth, which nobody at all can describe.
Swenson,
It’s not a myth.
So sorry that you are afraid of shadows.
“You would get dizzy if I was spinning the merry go round for you.”
Luckily for me, your fantasies are not reality.
Unluckily for you, you think your fantasies are real.
It really makes no difference, does it?
The GHE is still a myth, which nobody at all can describe. If it wasn’t a myth, you could at least describe it. How hard can it be?
[laughing at gullible fantasist]
Swenson,
Your man Tyndall discovered the greenhouse effect.
Are you saying he imagined things?
None of the commenters have reported the results of their observations. I would suggest that one must first try the experiment in order to comment on it.
–MASCOT OF THE ANOINTED REACHES EXPIRATION DATE: Queen Greta has exposed the truth about the green movement.
So, Greta Thunberg has a new cause. Shes found a new crusade to throw her weight behind. Forget saving the planet now she wants to save Palestine.
Yes, the pint-sized prophetess of doom has swapped raging against industrialism for raging against Israel. Mother Nature will just have to wait her erstwhile valiant defender is busy fixing the Middle East now.
Yesterday, Greta was snapped at the protest in Malmo, Sweden against Israels inclusion in the Eurovision Song Contest.
She looked the part. She had a keffiyeh draped over her shoulders and a smug look on her face: the two must-haves of every puffed-up bourgeois activist who gets off on fuming against Israel.
The keffiyeh really has become the uniform of the self-righteous. Go into a hip coffee shop or overpriced Soho burger joint and I guarantee youll see a Gen Zer decked out in the Palestinian scarf.
Whatever happened to the sin of cultural appropriation? Not long ago, the right-on raged against white dudes who wear their hair in dreadlocks and white women who don kominos. Stop stealing other peoples culture!, theyd yell. Yet now they themselves spend their days in Arab attire.
… —
But, maybe she is Arab.
If not, let’s just hand her over to them.
Greta wants to maintain her relevance. She’s reached an age where halting traffic and protesting in a provocative manner is no longer cute.
To remain in the spotlight, she aligns herself with a causes that ignores the full context and thrives by feigning victimhood.
Leftists hate Jews. It’s part of their cult.
Who do Rightists hate?
Are Rightists, right?
Leftists should be called “Wrongists”.
Then, you have Rightists and Wrongists.
Much easier to understand.
Such high-level “thinking” coming from cLInt.
Such high-level ‘thinking’ coming from cLInt.
AQ, please stop trolling.
“There is no evidence Moon ever spun. ”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666818
How do moons spin?
Thanks for quoting me correctly, gb.
Yes, Moon likely NEVER spun.
How do moons spin?
Simply look at what was written about it since centuries, and compare it to the utter nonsense written by a few technically and scientifically incompetent boys:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
Bindi, did you find a viable model of “orbiting without spin” in all that irrelevant crap?
Or do you still have NOTHING?
We don’t need no stinkin model of orbit without spin.
We could steal one from you, but you don’t have one either.
The ball-on-a-string is the most viable model to describe incompetence, arrogance and stubbornness of the lunar spin denial gang.
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1966ems..conf..165M&letter=0&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=165&epage=165&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf
Claims moon was formed in two ways, either impacting Earth, and more than 1 moon was formed.
I tend to favor Giant-impact hypothesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis
What about others?
Of course such narrowing down was directly the result of Apollo program.
Bindi and bob are so jealous.
I’ve got a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
They’ve got NOTHING.
Hey Puffman,
Try to do this –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666282
I bet you can’t.
Willard, please stop trolling.
So, China is exploring the farside of the Moon.
Joe Biden doesn’t know why {and says it’s always dark}
So, a question, is farside of moon easier {less delta-v} to land on and leave? {due to it’s spin or due to anything, else}?
The far side of the Moon is moving with more velocity, that might make launches easier, but I am a brain chemist, not a rocket scientist.
Bumbling bobby,
You are a nitwit who claims ” . . . adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”.
Brain chemist?
Bobby, please stop trolling.
“The far side of the Moon is moving with more velocity, that might make launches easier, but I am a brain chemist, not a rocket scientist.”
It would with any object spinning on it’s axis. It doesn’t help landing on Earth, but I am wondering if helps landing on Mars.
gb…the outer edge only moves faster if the axis is an external axis. But that also means the Moon is not spinning about a local axis.
Swenson,
” . . . adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night..”
You have not actually refuted that statement.
“gbthe outer edge only moves faster if the axis is an external axis. But that also means the Moon is not spinning about a local axis.”
How fast does Mars spin? Google:
–866 km/h
Earth: 23h 56m, 1574 km/h. Mars: 24h 36m, 866 km/h. Jupiter: 9h 55m, 45,583 km/h. Saturn: 10h 33m, 36,840 km/h.Feb 6, 2020–
Mars has large volcano.
mars largest mountain:
-Olympus Mons
The highest mountain on Mars is also the highest mountain and volcano in the entire solar system. It is called Olympus Mons and is 16 miles (24 kilometers) high which makes it about three times higher than Mt. Everest.”
I think if you land on Olympus Mons, one can get delta-v from Mars spin. And if launch a rocket from Olympus Mons you can delta-v from the spin of Mars.
I entered the phrase “In the past 8 months EVERY MONTH Maldives broke the national heat record and did it several times each month. Endless record heat 24/7: Nights are always 29/30C and super humid.” into the Google Search engine, I found no headlines. Similarly, a search for ‘Maldives heat’ under the ‘News’ tab yielded no results.
Willard is a monkey. He is resorting to spreading misinformation from sock puppet bots on Twitter.
Step 1 & 2 – Pure Denial and Sammich Request
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1788200999686943098
Took me 10 seconds.
Here is the problem.
Cookers here are basically ignorant twerps – yet they don’t know it.
N,N-Dimethyltryptamine is a monkey.
He cannot read.
Walter R. Hogle does not know when to shut up.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Willard is a monkey”.
***
More like a hideous orangutan.
lmao probably.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Welcome to the userpage of Maximiliano Herrera. I am a professional climatologist and I contributed to add and correct data in related Wikipedia documents. In this userpage you will find some of my current works and projects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maxcrc
Walter R. Hogle is a single kid in a trenchcoat.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tell Mr. Herrera that registered record highs and lows, for the most part, are meaningless because just miles away from the thermometer can be much warmer or cooler.
That doesn’t even take into account the fact that a significant number of these thermometers have been relocated to new locations.
> Tell Mr. Herrera
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Walter R. Hogle is a lone kid in a trenchcoat.
Anybody here like to second this motion?
It is so insightful. I cannot believe we have been wasting our time measuring temperatures. Time to burn all those useless recorded observations.
It doesn’t matter if anyone seconds. It doesn’t change the truth.
No one wasted time measuring temperatures. It’s just unfit for the purpose.
Walter R. Hogle should know by now that it matters if there’s a second kid in that trenchcoat.
Language is a social art.
DMT,
You wrote –
“It is so insightful. I cannot believe we have been wasting our time measuring temperatures. Time to burn all those useless recorded observations.”
Believe it. Measuring temperatures is a waste of time – resulting in historical curiosity, nothing more.
What do you think measurements achieve? Measuring the temperature of a thermometer is all well and good, but what is it supposed to achieve?
Do you intend to burn all historical weather data? That seems a bit extreme – but course you’re just being stupid, aren’t you?
Swenson,
“historical curiosity, nothing more.”
Exactly. That’s about all it’s good for.
Both land-based and satellite-based temperature networks have attempted to correct for systematic errors in their time series. Unless we can invent time travel, we can never actually correct it because we don’t know what the temperature should have been at the time of the observation, absent that bias.
It’s just unrealistic to think that we can track a regional temperature, let alone a global temperature, with high precision, especially to a level of tenth-degree accuracy.
Mike Flynn,
Are you really volunteering to team up with Walter R. Hogle? That trench coat may get very warm. Not that clothes would keep any Sky Dragon crank warm, mind you.
Silly sock puppet!
” it matters if theres a second kid in that trenchcoat.”
What does this mean? And what are you implying?
walter…they need to fudge past temperatures because they belie the global warming propaganda? They can’t explain how the 1930s were consistently warmer than today, with many more heat waves.
Walter R. Hogle’s reading skillz are as good as his research –
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/two-kids-in-a-trenchcoat
I blame homeschooling.
Willard, trying to appear intelligent –
“Walter R. Hogle should know by now that it matters if theres a second kid in that trenchcoat.”
– and failing miserably.
No wonder he describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Mike Flynn tries to bray something.
But what?
Silly sock puppet!
Willard, trying to appear intelligent
“Walter R. Hogle should know by now that it matters if theres a second kid in that trenchcoat.”
and failing miserably.
No wonder he describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
“registered record highs and lows, for the most part, are meaningless because just miles away from the thermometer can be much warmer or cooler.”
Walter this is nonsense. Can you support that claim with any evidence?
Nate,
“Walter this is nonsense. Can you support that claim with any evidence?”
“𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙨, 𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙗𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚, 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙫𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙚𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙡𝙮 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙩 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨,”
^^^
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html
“registered record highs and lows, for the most part, are meaningless”
Why does that make them meaningless?
Where i live is 20 miles from the coast, and indeed on the coast the temperature can be cooler or warmer.
But that doesn’t make my temperatures meaningless!
And as pointed out at GISS, the anomalies will be highly correlated, and meaningful.
So the warmer winter I had this year was similarly warmer on the coast.
Nate,
Specifically regarding record highs and lows, they are meaningless because the record could be an artifact of the microsite itself. Unless we monitor every square centimeter of the Earth, we can’t know whether these records are representative of climatic conditions or the small area in which the thermometer records the temperature.
Regarding anomalies, they are not meaningful. Two summer months with dramatically different temperature patterns can have the same anomaly.
I’ve also explained to you in the past how the maximum and minimum readings are not the actual peaks and troughs, but hourly averages, and thus have no usefulness. You were not convinced, so allow me to demonstrate with a graph, the best way I can attempt to deliver my point to trendologists.
https://i.postimg.cc/G3FfS0h9/Screen-Shot-2024-05-11-at-11-58-21-AM.png
The average is 97.5F. Does that make for a meaningful maximum sample?
*Two calendar months, not just summer months*
Nate,
You appear to believe that historical temperature records are useful.
Maybe you could provide some instances?
I cant think of any scientific uses which outweigh the cost of collection. Are temperature records more valuable than atmospheric pressure, relative humidity, cloud type and cover etc?
Maybe you believe that historical temperature records will help you to predict the future?
They won’t, of course. Only fanatical GHE cultists are likely to think that they can predict climate, for example.
I am curious as to your apparent fixation on past temperatures. If you don’t want to explain the reasons, I understand.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You are trying to white-knight a kid who says silly things like –
> the record could be an artifact of the microsite itself
Do you at least realize that Walter R. Hogle misinterprets what NASA says about anomalies?
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Nate questioned my claim specific to record highs and lows, not anomalies.
I merely wanted to show him evidence that backs up that specific claim.
What NASA has to say about anomalies was irrelevant to this conversation, at least until Nate wanted to talk about those too, which I have no problem discussing as well.
Walter R. Hogle provided a quote that does not support his claim that temperature records are meaningless. All the quote says is that anomalies are better to construct a *global* climate series. That temperature records get broken with more regularity is a clear effect of climate change, something the IPCC actually predicted.
And all this is happening while our kid underneath a trench coat is trying to suggest elsewhere that teh Goddard’s newsies are somehow “valid”…
Record high and low temperatures are absolute temperatures.
I quoted the specific sentence in the link that supported my argument. If I wanted to talk about anomalies, I would have quoted the other sections of my source.
Nate wants an authoritative source that says absolute temperatures vary significantly over short distances. I have no problem providing that.
What I said stands: we don’t know whether most record highs and lows are artifacts of the microsite itself.
Warner R. Hogle is tying himself into semantic knots. Significance is relative to some usage. Using temperature records is significant for some usage, not for some other.
No wonder he keeps asking an AI to to his homework.
I blame homeschooling.
Go away, troll.
Go away, tr0ll.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Warner R. Hogle is tying himself into semantic knots. Significance is relative to some usage. Using temperature records is significant for some usage, not for some other.”
You are doing your best to be as unhelpful as possible, by not specifying the usage you are referring to.
But what more would anyone expect from someone whose description of the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Are you still blaming Dr Spencer for your inability to appear relevant, if not quite sane?
Man up, Willard. Accept reality – the GHE is mythical. That’s why you can’t describe it better than “not cooling, slower cooling” – which makes no sense at all!
> Go away
You’re in my thread, silly boy.
Willard,
You wrote-
“Youre in my thread, silly boy.”
You are obviously delusional. Has your “thread” become unravelled?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Specifically regarding record highs and lows, they are meaningless because the record could be an artifact of the microsite itself. Unless we monitor every square centimeter of the Earth, we cant know whether these records are representative of climatic conditions or the small area in which the thermometer records the temperature.”
Walter, you are expressing your feelings, not facts or logical inferences.
As I noted and your GISS link explained and demonstrated, even though temperatures can vary from place to place, the anomalies are highly CORRELATED over wide regions.
Because weather variations are highly correlated over 100s of kilometers.
So the unusually warm winter this year in my region, New England, was a feature shared across the whole northeastern US.
IOW, the anomalies this winter were high across the whole region, even though the average temperatures are different from place to place.
In my work we use sampling theory, to determine the minimum number of samples needed to properly represent a varying phenomenon.
In short, if variations are correlated over some distance scale, D, then it is entirely sufficient to sample over, eg, D/10.
That means it is a total waste of resources to sample T anomalies over every cm, or every km, or even every 10 km.
new england
“I cant think of any scientific uses…”
Not being able to think is a sign of mental deficiency or a brain fluid leak. You may want to get that checked out Swenson.
“Walter, you are expressing your feelings, not facts or logical inferences.”
———-
Anomalies are distinct from record highs and lows, Nate. Record highs and lows represent absolute temperatures.
Given that absolute temperatures can vary significantly over short distances, how do we ascertain that it’s not a record just a couple of miles away from the thermometer?
#######
“As I noted and your GISS link explained and demonstrated, even though temperatures can vary from place to place, the anomalies are highly CORRELATED over wide regions.
Because weather variations are highly correlated over 100s of kilometers.
So the unusually warm winter this year in my region, New England, was a feature shared across the whole northeastern US.
IOW, the anomalies this winter were high across the whole region, even though the average temperatures are different from place to place.”
Anomalies are correlated over 1000km, but is that correlation useful? As you say, the average temperature isn’t the same everywhere, and the weather pattern isn’t exactly synchronous at each thermometer.
And look at the graph I provided. You can clearly see how these significant variations get smoothed out when averaged.
> is that correlation useful?
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Walter R. Hogle should get away from my threads.
“Anomalies are correlated over 1000km, but is that correlation useful?”
Well that question is an improvement over the statement that the measured temperatures ‘useless’.
“As you say, the average temperature isnt the same everywhere, and the weather pattern isnt exactly synchronous at each thermometer.”
The weather pattern does have correlation. A heat wave or a cold snap is is generally happening over a large region at once.
Nate,
“Well that question is an improvement over the statement that the measured temperatures useless.”
I was saying absolute highs and lows ( the record highs and lows) are useless.
“The weather pattern does have correlation. A heat wave or a cold snap is is generally happening over a large region at once.”
But the anomaly won’t be the same at every station in your area because of the location, thermometer’s microsite, and the thermometer itself.
Why do you think averaging anomalies to a grid average increases accuracy?
> I was saying absolute highs and lows ( the record highs and lows) are useless.
Step 1 (Pure Denial) or Step 3 (Saying Stuff)?
Walter R. Hogle could be doing both.
“But the anomaly wont be the same at every station in your area because of the location, thermometers microsite, and the thermometer itself.”
So what?
If the anomaly is sampled well, with sufficient density, from well sited locations, then it is an effective way of representing change in a system.
Walter, in science, if you have a criticism of research, you have to show why it matters, ie show that it matters significantly to the outcome.
So far, all you have done is tell us you have a feeling that this is a problem.
Nate,
“if you have a criticism of research, you have to show why it matters, ie show that it matters significantly to the outcome.”
You adamantly defend the use of anomalies, claiming that they are sufficient to document change. Read and look closely at Willis’ Figures 2 and 5, and of course, the histogram he provides for the trends.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/11/the-us-blows-hot-and-cold/
Where does he say there is a problem with anomalies?
If he has found something useful he should publish it, rather than posting it on a blog. That way peer reviewers can have at it.
One problem with his analysis is that he looks at the distribution of temperature at EVERY station, which means he will be weighting too heavily high population locations that have many stations.
Whereas in a proper analysis, all regions need to be weighted equally.
Nate,
“Where does he say there is a problem with anomalies?”
I’m simply using this as evidence to back up my claim. If anomalies were sufficient to document change, why is it that stations within the same 1000 km are showing cooling or very uneven rates of warming?”
“One problem with his analysis is that he looks at the distribution of temperature at EVERY station, which means he will be weighting too heavily high population locations that have many stations.
Whereas in a proper analysis, all regions need to be weighted equally.”
This is the data in its rawest form. Weighing these by population won’t change the trends.
In any case, weighing is mostly futile because most stations have been corrupted by sitting issues and/or local land use change. Thus, we cannot compare “pristine” stations with stations located in population centers. Very few, if any, stations have remained homogenous throughout the period of record.
“This is the data in its rawest form. Weighing these by population wont change the trends.”
Uhhh…of course it will. You dont seem to understand all data requires analysis to obtain meaning from it.
“In any case, weighing is mostly futile because most stations have been corrupted by sitting issues and/or local land use change. Thus, we cannot compare pristine stations with stations located in population centers. Very few, if any, stations have remained homogenous throughout the period of record.”
Science is can’t be done, its pointless, yada yada yada…
You are a broken record, Walter, but still expressing just your feelings.
“Science is cant be done, its pointless, yada yada yada
You are a broken record, Walter, but still expressing just your feelings.”
Even Zeke Hausfather admitted that most stations have been subjected to some form of inhomogeneity, Nate.
“Even Zeke Hausfather admitted that most stations have been subjected to some form of inhomogeneity, Nate.”
I don’t know what you are trying to say.
This is the historical data we have. Many DIFFERENT groups have used the data and applied somewhat different methods to select, correct, analyze them.
Yet, with these various approaches, the trends found are remarkably similar.
So pick your favorite methods, it doesnt make much difference.
Your approach seems to be to just throw up your hands and say it can’t be done.
Nate,
You said that to assess the validity of my evidence that anomalies alone are insufficient to document change, we should weigh the trends by population. That’s fine, but you should recognize that these weather stations themselves have faced many inconsistencies over their record. These inhomogeneities mean that the results are going to be distorted, and you won’t get what you are looking for.
Regarding adjustments, it’s good that they acknowledge the existence of these inhomogeneities. But remember that in a time series, your sample size is always one. Once an opportunity to measure accurately on a given day is missed or flawed, it cannot be corrected. Adjustments are unsuitable for this purpose.
We just have to work with what we have. Stay on track; don’t veer off.
“You said that to assess the validity of my evidence that anomalies alone are insufficient to document change, we should weigh the trends by population.”
No, you misunderstood me.
T should be area weighted, not weighted by population as your link did.
My point was that there are many more T stations around metro areas, so simply averaging all station data does not work to evenly sample all areas.
Max is a bean counter who calls himself a climatologist. The word means nothing, all it means is that someone works in a job associated with climate, loosely or otherwise.
Mr. Asshat is an hifi tech who should call himself a crank. He keeps repeating the same insane untruths every single day on this blog since at least 2013. There is not a single scientific fact he won’t deny at one time or another.
hi fi tech??? How old are you?
I’m old enough to know what’s a Mackintosh, Gordon.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
“Im old enough to know whats a Mackintosh, Gordon.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
This way, please.
Awww … is that really our Walter pretending to be a ‘professional climatologist’?
And I see the page is 17 years old today.
Happy Birthday Walter!! (I mean Maximillian!!)
AQ, please stop trolling.
I’m not pretending to be a bot.
Actually, I don’t think he’s a bot. He’s just a monkey like Ant and Willard.
> I dont think
Walter R. Hogle could have stopped right there.
A monkey might be hammering Willard’s keyboard while Willard is playing with himself.
It would be hard to know the difference. Willard could always blame a monkey for Willard’s description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”!
Hey Mike Flynn,
You little sociopath,
You’re in my thread.
You know what happens when you keep trying to bug me in my thread?
Yeah, silly sock puppet, that’s right.
This way, please.
Willard, you fool,
You wrote –
“You know what happens when you keep trying to bug me in my thread?”
Nothing at all. You are dreaming – not your thread, and you are not the blog’s operator.
Just another dimwitted fanatical GHE cultist, who claims that he cannot describe the GHE.
How strange!
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You gaslight –
> You are dreaming.
Not at all. I am quite sure I wrote this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666912
This comment is at the origin of the current subthread.
Since you lack social skillz, ask Eboy how that works.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”In the past 8 months EVERY MONTH Maldives broke the national heat record and did it several times each month”.
***
Duh!!! And a Homer Simpson Doh!!!
The Maldives is on the Equator. Duh!!! It’s hot on the Equator. I mean, if you told someone in the Maldives they had just experienced a record, would they notice?
On the Equator. Hot. Therefore it MUST break its temp records in consecutive months every year.
Mr. Asshat is a genius.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Do you seriously think that anyone cares about a heat record on the Equator? And do you seriously think that CO2 can force a record on the Equator and not everywhere on the planet.
I am glad you alarmists are so stoopid.
> Do you seriously think that anyone cares about a heat record on the Equator?
Mr. Asshat bears his nickname once more!
In general the equator is not the hottest place on Earth.
Nate,
You wrote –
“In general the equator is not the hottest place on Earth.”
Maybe you could actually try to be helpful, and explain where the hottest places on Earth are to be found, and why they are the hottest!
No? Why am I not surprised?
You are just another fanatical GHE cultist, after all. Any description of the GHE you imagine won’t accord with reality. Try explaining the hottest places on Earth with your mythical GHE!
Carry on.
> Maybe you could actually try to be helpful, and explain
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Nate,
You wrote
“In general the equator is not the hottest place on Earth.”
Maybe you could actually try to be helpful, and explain where the hottest places on Earth are to be found, and why they are the hottest!
No? Why am I not surprised?
You are just another fanatical GHE cultist, after all. Any description of the GHE you imagine won’t accord with reality. Try explaining the hottest places on Earth with your mythical GHE!
Carry on.
Sammich? Willard, please stop trolling. You are too stupid to be any good at it.
> Maybe you could actually try to be helpful, and explain
Step 2 – Sammich Request
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mr. Asshat strikes again –
> the outer edge only moves faster if the axis is an external axis
There is no way one can come up with such insanity without coming here.
Thanks, Roy!
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“There is no way one can come up with such insanity without coming here.”
Of course there is. You manage to do it no matter where you are. For example, you describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”. The GHE is mythical.
The inability to accept reality is one indication of insanity. You don’t appear to accept the reality that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, but feel free to disagree.
Carry on,
Mike Flynn,
When you say –
> Of course there is.
you seem to be suggesting that you are requesting your silly sammich elsewhere. We know of your time at Judy’s. But I was under the impression that Roy’s was your only place nowadays.
Silly sock puppet!
You wrote
“There is no way one can come up with such insanity without coming here.”
Of course there is. You manage to do it no matter where you are. For example, you describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”. The GHE is mythical.
The inability to accept reality is one indication of insanity. You dont appear to accept the reality that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, but feel free to disagree.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You mention an inability to accept reality.
Are you referring to your years of denial being Mike Flynn?
Or perhaps your decade of denial having received the sammich you keep requesting?
Quite a sad and sociopathic sock puppet!
Cheers.
You wrote
“There is no way one can come up with such insanity without coming here.”
Of course there is. You manage to do it no matter where you are. For example, you describe the GHE as not cooling, slower cooling. The GHE is mythical.
The inability to accept reality is one indication of insanity. You don’t appear to accept the reality that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, but feel free to disagree.
You write “Are you referring to your years of denial being Mike Flynn?” Are you claiming those years do not exist? Or that your imagining that my name is Mike Flynn is not real? Facts are facts, you idiot – reality!
You also dribble more juvenile nonsense –
“Or perhaps your decade of denial having received the sammich you keep requesting?”
Tut, tut, Willard. Your detachment from reality is showing. Insanity – refusal to accept the reality that your description of the mythical GHE “not cooling, slower cooling” is quite mad. You point-blank refuse to accept that cooling is decreasing temperature, and is a natural process, not needing any mythical GHE.
Are you stupid as well as insane?
Carry on.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You assert –
> You point-blank refuse to accept that cooling is decreasing temperature
Where did I ever refuse that truism, silly sock puppet?
Weepy Wee Willard,
You wrote –
“Where did I ever refuse that truism, [that cooling is decreasing temperature ] silly sock puppet?”
When you described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”. I hope you are not going to now complain that you really meant to describe the mythical GHE in some other way!
Feel free to provide another description of the mythical GHE if you like. If you believe the GHE is supposed to result in warming through some magical process (you won’t find a physical process that heats a planet with CO2), just say so.
But fanatical GHE cultists generally refuse to commit themselves to anything specific – no doubt for fear of being laughed at. They are ignorant and gullible, but exhibit a certain amount of rat cunning.
So carry on whining. You still can’t describe the GHE, can you? All you can do is appeal to my authority – how stupid is that? There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Carry on being a fool.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You lie again –
> When you described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”
And where did I described the greenhouse effect as not cooling, slower cooling?
I just showed you where you yourself did.
A decade of charades for that silly semantic game?
Silly sociopath!
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
If you are now claiming that you didnt describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, it should be easy enough to provide the description you claim you did provide.
Unfortunately, you can’t, because you didnt .
Being an idiot, and writing –
“And where did I described the greenhouse effect as not cooling, slower cooling?” won’t help you.
Why should I tell you when and where you wrote something? Prove you didn’t, by supplying another description. How hard can it be? According to some other dimwits, the GHE has been described thousands of times! You can’t find one better than your “not cooling, slower cooling”, can you?
That’s pretty sad, isn’t it?.
Monomaniac Mike Flynn,
You claimed I said something which I did not say.
In fact, I proved that you are the one who said it.
How does it feel to be exposed as a clueless sociopath?
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Weepy Wee Willy,
If you are now claiming that you didn’t describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, it should be easy enough to provide the description you claim you did provide.
Unfortunately, you cant, because you didn’t .
Being an idiot, and writing
“And where did I described the greenhouse effect as not cooling, slower cooling?” wont help you.
Why should I tell you when and where you wrote something? Prove you didnt, by supplying another description. How hard can it be? According to some other dimwits, the GHE has been described thousands of times! You cant find one better than your “not cooling, slower cooling”, can you?
Thats pretty sad, isnt it?.
Monomaniacal Mike,
Since you can’t prove that I said what you claim I said and you can’t plausibly deny having said what you claim I said, you are simply lying. That it is such a trivial matter only confirms that you’re a clueless sociopath.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
If you are now claiming that you didnt describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, it should be easy enough to provide the description you claim you did provide.
Unfortunately, you can’t, because you didn’t .
Being an idiot, and writing
“And where did I described the greenhouse effect as not cooling, slower cooling?” wont help you.
Why should I tell you when and where you wrote something? Prove you didn’t, by supplying another description. How hard can it be? According to some other dimwits, the GHE has been described thousands of times! You cant find one better than your “not cooling, slower cooling”, can you?
Thats pretty sad, isn’t it?.
If, as you claim, you didn’t describe the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” (and of course you did), then you should be able to say what you really described it as! But you can’t, because you described it as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Go on, scuttle around in circles like the cockroach you are!
Monomaniacal Mike,
Since you are copy-pasting your comments like Graham D. Warner would, it is obvious that you can’t prove that I said what you claim I said.
You could continue to deny being Mike Flynn, even after admitted being him. The quotes I provided clearly establishes that the pet line is all yours.
So you’re simply lying. You’re lying on such a trivial matter that it can only confirm that youre a clueless sociopath.
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
rather than post such inane responses, you might try to understand the post to which you are responding. I clearly stated the ‘outer edge’ because if a sphere is rotating about a local axis, the outer edges will rotate at the same angular speed. It is only when the Moon rotates about the Earth as an axis that the outer edge moves faster than the inner edge.
Even at that, the outer and inner edges must move at the same speed over a complete orbit, otherwise the Moon must disintegrate.
Gordon,
“Even at that, the outer and inner edges must move at the same speed over a complete orbit, otherwise the Moon must disintegrate.”
Not if the Moon is rotating, which keeps the Moon from disintegrating.
bob will never understand. He actually believes the ball-on-a-string is spinning!
He’ll never learn.
That’s what “brain-dead” looks like.
Hey, Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666282
Clint,
Yes I believe a ball on a string is rotating on is internal axis, because TCBSTBT.
In other words, I have proved a ball on a string is rotating on an internal axis.
Gordon Robertson
You’re on the ball today.
Actually the problem for the Moon is that the whole body orbits at the angular and tangential velocity of its centre of mass.
A rock on the surface nearest to Earth is 1000 miles inward from the centre of mass and is moving slower than a free mass orbiting at that altitude. If it was a free mass it would move inwards. The rock experiences a small virtual force pulling it towards Earth.
A rock on the surface furthest from Earth is 1000 miles outward from the centre of mass and is moving faster than a free mass orbiting at that altitude. If it was a free mass it would move outwards. The rock experiences a small virtual force pulling it away from Earth.
The result is a net force stretching the Moon along the Earth/Moon line. You can see the effect on the Moon’s shape. It bulges slightly at the nearest and furthest points to Earth.
In a closer orbit the stretching force gets stronger. At a minimum distance called the Roche Limit the stretching force is stronger than the gravitational force holding the Moon together. The two rocks follow completely different orbits and the Moon falls apart.
It doesn’t matter whether you are a spinner or a non-spinner. The physics is the same either way.
bobdroege, Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
ark…”The way to discuss scientific issues is not by belittling those who rebut your claims, but to politely engage with them, check their facts, and check their sources. Let them check yours. Its more mature and useful than calling them names”.
***
Coming from a poster who continually posts alarmist rhetoric yet expects other posters to to engage in a polite dialog about trash. If Ark had the slightest sense of scientific decorum, he would not post obvious trash.
“alarmist rhetoric”
“scientific decorum”
“obvious trash”
Coming from a poster who continually posts opinions such as:
a speedometer is actually a velocitymeter
or
IR is not absorbed by molecules
and the crowd favorite:
molecules don’t collide with other molecules
Thanks for making my point.
Gordon Robertson,
I your zeal to belittle, you ignored the most important part of my advice:
Why do you take offense when someone shows greater knowledge about a subject than you? Why can’t you accept that they know something you don’t?
A,
You seem disinclined to describe the mythical GHE yourself, instead claiming it has been described thousands of times.
Are you talking about descriptions like these –
“not cooling, slower cooling” – Willard
“a stack of blankets” – Entropic Man,
or are you referring to something else?
I assume that you are just pretending that you have a valid description, as fanatical GHE cultists tend to do.
Feel free to provide a description which agrees with observed reality.
You can’t of course. Reality wins again.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
The “slower cooling” line is all yours. I already showed where you used that line. Here’s an older one:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/19/the-2-8-effect/#comment-415649
So here you go – another description of the greenhouse effect from you.
Silly sock puppet!
Mike Flynn wrote –
“As a final attempt to persuade you that CO2 warming is nonsense, I ask if you might care to consider night in a tropical desert. While temperature is dropping rapidly after sunset, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not. A Warmist might convince himself that in the absence of atmosphere, the temperature would drop even more rapidly, and this is true.
He might then go on to say that this slower cooling is really warming. No it’s not it’s cooling.”
As Mike Flynn said slower cooling is not warming, it’s cooling.
Willard, you are obviously insane, claiming that Mike Flynn said that cooling is warming. Read what he said “No it’s not – it’s cooling”.
CO2 warming is nonsense, as Mike Flynn and I say.
You’re an idiot.
Carry on.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
> Mike Flynn wrote
Why are you speaking of yourself in the third person?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn wrote
“As a final attempt to persuade you that CO2 warming is nonsense, I ask if you might care to consider night in a tropical desert. While temperature is dropping rapidly after sunset, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not. A Warmist might convince himself that in the absence of atmosphere, the temperature would drop even more rapidly, and this is true.
He might then go on to say that this slower cooling is really warming. No its not its cooling.”
As Mike Flynn said slower cooling is not warming, it’s cooling.
Willard, you are obviously insane, claiming that Mike Flynn said that cooling is warming. Read what he said “No it’s not it’s cooling”.
CO2 warming is nonsense, as Mike Flynn and I say.
You’re an idiot.
Carry on.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“Why are you speaking of yourself in the third person?” Why do you ask, dummy?
Have you appointed yourself as Dr Spencer’s running dog hall monitor? The arbiter of which pseudonyms people must use, what forms of grammatical expression are allowable?
Oh dear, Willard, by now a reasonably intelligent person would have realised that I express myself as I wish, and when I wish. Whether you like it or not, there is nothing you can do about it, is there?
Why is that, Willard? Are you completely impotent in respect of how and when I comment?
Accept reality. You can’t describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality, or name anyone who values your opinions.
So sad, too bad. Try harder. It still won’t help, because you’re an idiot.
Monomaniacal Mike Flynn,
Thank you for confirming that you are a clueless sociopath.
Cheers, silly sock puppet!
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote
“Why are you speaking of yourself in the third person?” Why do you ask, dummy?
Have you appointed yourself as Dr Spencers running dog hall monitor? The arbiter of which pseudonyms people must use, what forms of grammatical expression are allowable?
Oh dear, Willard, by now a reasonably intelligent person would have realised that I express myself as I wish, and when I wish. Whether you like it or not, there is nothing you can do about it, is there?
Why is that, Willard? Are you completely impotent in respect of how and when I comment?
Accept reality. You cant describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality, or name anyone who values your opinions.
So sad, too bad. Try harder. It still wont help, because youre an idiot.
Monomaniacal Mike FLynn,
Keep confirming that you are a clueless sociopath, silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson,
Since I only ever post actual data and citations to consensus research papers, the fact that you are alarmed by them makes you the alarmist.
You spread fear or panic by habitually exaggerating the significance of the data, or findings of the research papers in my posts.
Don’t you reckon?
A,
Are you really silly enough to believe that “consensus research papers” represent physical fact of any sort?
You obviously don’t agree with Richard Feynman and myself –
“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.”
None of your “consensus research papers” mention experimental support, do they?
You appear to believe in the mythical GHE, but you can’t describe it, can you?
All you can do is claim that somebody else has described! That makes you both ignorant and gullible, in fact.
ark…”…I only ever post actual data and citations to consensus research papers….”
***
That’s my point, nothing you post has a proved scientific basis.
Gordon Robertson,
Because I’m neither a researcher in this field nor a climate scientist, my posts are of necessity supported by the research of those, all over the world, who studied this subject all their adult lives and are expert in this kind of analysis.
My professional habits require that I conduct myself in such manner.
What about you, what does your professional code of conduct ask of you?
Ark says: “Because I’m neither a researcher in this field nor a climate scientist, my posts are of necessity supported by the research of those, all over the world, who studied this subject all their adult lives and are expert in this kind of analysis.”
Ark, unfortunately you are not alone. That is the pattern of cultists. They just go with whatever there cult leaders tell them. Cultists can’t think for themselves. As you see here, Bindi just keeps linking to cult sources. He knows NOTHING about orbital motion, and can’t learn.
That ain’t science.
Puffman, please stop drooling.
A,
You wrote –
” . . . who studied this subject all their adult lives and are expert in this kind of analysis.”
Any fool can analyse anything, and many do. I agree with Feynman, who wrote “Science is belief in the ignorance of experts.”
You really are a gullible and ignorant GHE cultist, aren’t you?
Good for you!
“Any fool can analyse anything”
Swenson is going with DIY brain surgery when he gets round to it.
Willard,
You wrote:
“You dont seem to realize that Walter R. Hogle just rediscovered teh Goddard.”
What’s wrong with Steve Goddard? He just collects old newspapers about weather from all over the world during older eras.
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Perhaps Walter R. Hogle doesn’t know that even Tony disinvited him:
https://tinyurl.com/tony-disinvited-teh-goddard
Poor sod.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m not interested in drama.
My point is specific to the validity of the old newspapers he collects.
Walter R. Hogle’s incuriosity is duly noted.
Too bad he does not read the post from which Tony’s quote has been excerpted, e.g.:
https://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature
He might try to dismiss this as “drama” if he so pleases. I’m not that interested in what can interest a kid inside a trenchcoat. Or not.
Walter R. Hogle’s incuriosity is duly noted.
Too bad he does not read the post from which Tony’s quote has been excerpted, e.g.:
https://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature
He might try to dismiss this as “drama” if he so pleases. I’m not that interested in what can interest a kid inside a trenchcoat. Or not.
Walter R. Hogle’s incuriosity is duly noted.
Too bad he does not read the post from which Tony’s quote has been excerpted, e.g.:
Op. Cit.
He might try to dismiss this as “drama” if he so pleases. I’m not that interested in what can interest a kid inside a trenchcoat. Or not.
Walter R. Hogle’s incuriosity is duly noted.
Too bad he does not read the post on which Tony commented, i.e.:
Op. Cit.
He might try to dismiss this as “drama” if he so pleases.
The newspapers.
I care about those.
I see also on Judith Curry’s site, Walter claimed that the more numbers you average the greater the variance, the exact opposite of reality.
He must have realised his mistake because he begged Curry to delete his post, which didn’t happen.
Afterwards, he goes on to show that he has merely read about the central limit theorem and never understood it, certainly never applied it.
I asked her to delete a duplicate post of mine.
I stand by what I said. There is no global average temperature.
Talk shit all you like.
> There is no global average temperature.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
I have shown otherwise to you before.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“> There is no global average temperature.
Step 1 Pure Denial”
Go on, tell everyone what “temperature” is being “averaged” – then provide this “average”.
You might have to redefine “global”, “average”, and “temperature” as you go. This should present no problem to a fanatical GHE cultist who describes the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, implying that CO2 is somehow responsible for rising temperatures of something unspecified, somewhere, by some amount – and all through the miracle of “cooling”.
Stick to dribbling incomprehensible nonsense. Trying to sound intelligent is not your strong point.
Carry on.
Your unwillingness to back up the claims of yours that I actually discussed are noted, and accepted as concessions.
> Go on, tell everyone
Step 2 – Sammich Request
AQ,
You wrote –
“Your unwillingness to back up the claims of yours that I actually discussed are noted, and accepted as concessions.”
Well, that will have him shaking in his boots, won’t it?
What mental impairment leads you to think anyone (apart from yourself) values your opinion?
You can’t even describe the mythical GHE, can you? Maybe you agree with Willard’s description “not cooling, slower cooling”. How about “the GHE is a stack of blankets”?
No? Maybe you can find a description of the mythical GHE that you are prepared to repeat, but I doubt it. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise, or just scuttle away blubbing piteously.
Only joking, you can’t describe the GHE at all. It’s a myth.
“Your unwillingness to back up the claims of yours that I actually discussed are noted, and accepted as concessions.”
Your thermometer is located in a desert.
The maximum air temperature solely as a result of incoming solar radiation is 89F. Call this the conventional true value that you want.
But in addition, sand is releasing heat due to its thermal properties, adding 3F. So your maximum reading sample for that day is 92F. Thus, your maximum temperature sample for that day is skewed by 3F, which the daily average will inherit.
The sand’s thermal inertia is a contextualized, non-climactic factor. For your air temperature samples to be identically distributed, they cannot be influenced by non-climactic factors.
What is “your” thermometer??
And if true, what are you worried about. Those factors won’t have changed, so it won’t have contributed to the rising anomalies.
AQ,
“What is “your thermometer??”
Ooooooh! A gotcha!
Just trying to play silly semantic games, or are you truly as stupid as you pretend?
What’s your definition of the meaningless “global average temperature”? What relationship does that mythical creature bear to the mythical GHE?
Can’t say? Won’t say?
What a pity!
“Those factors wont have changed, so it wont have contributed to the rising anomalies.”
You are incorrect. Natural phenomena like sandstorms and floods will change the distribution and composition of the sand, thus affecting its thermal impact, along with other environmental parameters.
For example, wet sand has a higher heat capacity than dry sand.
And where is your proof that natural phenomena have specifically INCREASED temperatures averaged over ALL deserts? And by how much?
Ant,
If you’d like to change the topic, that’s alright with me.
But, does that mean you acknowledge that I’m correctaveraging increases variance?
AQ,
You wrote –
“And where is your proof that natural phenomena have specifically INCREASED temperatures averaged over ALL deserts? And by how much?”
Ooooooooooh! Another meaningless and irrelevant gotTcha! How novel!
Proof that temperatures are temperatures? Well, the Sun is a natural phenomena, and I don’t know about proof, but it’s generally accepted that more intense sunlight results in increased temperatures – even in deserts.
Even Antarctica, a large desert characterised by little so-called “greenhouse gas” (H2O) in the atmosphere, is warmer in sunlight than in darkness.
You are just being stupid, aren’t you, because you can’t even say what the mythical GHE is supposed to do!
Keep at it.
Walter
You’re the one who changed the topic to deserts, not me. And you did it to avoid justifying your previous claims. Now you are avoiding answering either.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Youre the one who changed the topic to deserts, not me.”
Oh dear. What “topic” was that? Can’t say? Won’t say?
Maybe you could address the topic of why you refuse to describe the mythical GHE? Is it because you can’t, or because you don’t want to?
Very astute of you, AQ. You’re no idiot, are you? You don’t want people like me to laugh at you!
Carry on avoiding. I’ll keep on laughing anyway.
Walter thanks you for sheltering him from his bumbling.
AQ,
You wrote
“You’re the one who changed the topic to deserts, not me.”
Oh dear. What “topic” was that? Cant say? Wont say?
Maybe you could address the topic of why you refuse to describe the mythical GHE? Is it because you cant, or because you dont want to?
Very astute of you, AQ. Youre no idiot, are you? You dont want people like me to laugh at you!
Carry on avoiding. Ill keep on laughing anyway.
Walter thanks you for continuing to shelter him from his bumbling.
I mentioned sandstorms because you argued that non-climatic elements, which prevent air temperature samples from being identically distributed, remain constant over time.
lmao
Willard,
Would you like to expand on why you are laughing your ass off?
Step 2 – Sammich Request
“Step 2 Sammich Request”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Steve Goddard (aka Tony Heller) is a highly qualified quality assurance expert who has worked for Intel doing quality assurance on the Intel i7 processor. Very few are as qualified as he is to assess the claims of NOAA and NASA GISS. He has used his expertise to examine claims of NOAA and GISS and to see where they have fudged data.
Wee willy, on the other hand, is a useless alarmist nimrod who regularly questions claims of experts like Goddard using inane sources.
Teh Goddard is as qualified as Mr. Asshat:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-its-hot-in-washington-how-about.html
Teh Goddard is as qualified as Mr. Asshat:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-its-hot-in-washington-how-about.html
Gordon – proof of your claims from a RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT source please. (ie. not from Heller’s mouth, nor from others like you regurgitating his own claims of experience)
AQ,
Are you away with the fairies?
You wrote “Gordon proof of your claims from a RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT source please. (ie. not from Hellers mouth, nor from others like you regurgitating his own claims of experience)”
What “proof” are you babbling about? Facts are facts, and as Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
You are so confused that you refuse to make any claims about the GHE – even that it exists! Go on, what is it supposed to do? What is its role in the Earth having cooled to its present temperature?
You are definitely not the brightest bulb in the box. Maybe you don’t realise that Gavin Schmidt is not any sort of scientist at all, let alone a “climate” scientist, or that Michael Mann is not a Nobel Prize winner, but rather a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat.
I hope you wouldn’t regard either of these as a RELIABLE and INDEPENDENT source for anything at all, would you?
Scuttle away.
So Heller “has worked for Intel doing quality assurance on the Intel i7 processor is a “fact” that just … “is”?
But of course that is how your concept of “facts” works.
AQ,
You wrote “So Heller . . . “.
Who is this Heller? A pretend “climate scientist” like Gavin Schmidt? A fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat like Michael Mann?
Has he managed to describe the mythical GHE (unlike yourself), or are you just trying to be annoying?
Try away – some weak-minded people choose to be annoyed. I rarely choose to feel annoyed, insulted, offended, and so on, by idiots. Would you?
Have you managed to describe the mythical GHE yet? Do you like Willard’s “not cooling, slower cooling”? He now denies having described the mythical GHE at all!
I don’t blame him.
You chose to enter the conversation, and no one joins in without knowing what they are discussing, right? Certainly no one would challenge comments about a subject they are not familiar with?
AQ,
You wrote So Heller . . . .
Who is this Heller? A pretend “climate scientist” like Gavin Schmidt? A fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat like Michael Mann?
Has he managed to describe the mythical GHE (unlike yourself), or are you just trying to be annoying?
Try away some weak-minded people choose to be annoyed. I rarely choose to feel annoyed, insulted, offended, and so on, by idiots. Would you?
Have you managed to describe the mythical GHE yet? Do you like Willards “not cooling, slower cooling”? He now denies having described the mythical GHE at all!
I dont blame him.
You chose to enter the conversation, and surely no one joins in without knowing what they are discussing, right? Certainly no one would challenge comments about a subject they are not familiar with?
Gotcha after gotcha.
Feel free to answer yourself.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
John Kerry Pushes Massive Tax Rises to Meet the $13.6 trillion Climate Finance Challenge
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/13/john-kerry-pushes-massive-tax-rises-to-meet-the-13-6-trillion-climate-finance-challenge/
Lurch was far more interesting.
–Former US presidential candidate John Kerry, who stepped down from his role as the US special climate envoy in March, puts the challenge of meeting this bluntly: We dont have the money.–
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS: Ashley Biden Wrote Letter to Judge Confirming That Diary Reporting That Biden Showered With Her Until a Not Appropriate Age Is Real. Snopes has been denying this for years
https://instapundit.com/
Snopes is only useful to a minority.
Instapundit?? You have to be kidding. Next you’ll be recommending QAnon.
Here’s a wonderful earlier comment from the endlessly diverting bobdroege –
“Swenson,
” . . . adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night..”
You have not actually refuted that statement.”
I would just point out to anybody who might be ignorant and gullible enough to believe bobdroege’s nonsense “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.” – Feynman and me.
As Tyndall showed by experiment, increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer reduces the amount of radiation reaching the thermometer, and the temperature of the thermometer falls as a result.
Bumbling bobby doesn’t like my universe, and has created his own – the fantasy universe of BobbyWorld.
Swenson,
True, but that experiment is not the greenhouse effect.
You will have to do better than that.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote, irrelevantly, –
“True, but that experiment is not the greenhouse effect.”
True, indeed, showing that you agree that your statement – . .. .adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.” Is nonsense.
As Tyndall showed by experiment, increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer reduces the amount of radiation reaching the thermometer, and the temperature of the thermometer falls as a result.”
The mythical “greenhouse effect” is something you cannot even describe. Saying “. . . that experiment is not the greenhouse effect.” Is the mark of a seriously disturbed mind. Of course the “greenhouse effect” is not an experiment. It’s a mythical concept which you cannot even describe.
All your attempts at avoiding reality show that you are just another fanatical GHE cultist, possibly dimmer than most.
Carry on dreaming that BobbyWorld is real.
Sorry Swenson,
But the Earth is heated by the Sun, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere retards the Earth’s ability to cool to space, thus resulting in a warmer surface.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Tyndall “made discoveries in the realms of infrared radiation and the physical properties of air, proving the connection between atmospheric CO2 and what is now known as the greenhouse effect in 1859.”
You have Tyndall all wrong, of course he is known for discovering the greenhouse effect, not debunking it.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“You have Tyndall all wrong, of course he is known for discovering the greenhouse effect, not debunking it.”
No, Tyndall never mentioned the greenhouse effect. He pointed out that without an atmosphere, human life would be unsupportable – temperatures would drop below freezing at night, and become boiling hot during the day.
Unlike you and the rest of the idiot GHE cultists, Tyndall performed quite meticulous experiments to see whether his speculations about various things were correct. For example, he measured the effect of atmospheric attenuation on radiation reaching the Earth, and concluded that around 30 to 35% of the Sun’s radiation doesn’t even reach the surface.
You probably don’t realise that this is why the hottest temperatures on Earth are much lower than on the Moon.
When you say something inordinately stupid , like –
“Swenson, Sorry, but adding more CO2 actually increases the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer, on average, over a period of time. Even at night.”, you can understand why people who have read Tyndall’s work laugh at you.
Carry on being a fool.
Swenson,
“No, Tyndall never mentioned the greenhouse effect”
Of course he didn’t, the term was coined later, but based on his work.
“For example, he measured the effect of atmospheric attenuation on radiation reaching the Earth, and concluded that around 30 to 35% of the Suns radiation doesnt even reach the surface.
You probably dont realise that this is why the hottest temperatures on Earth are much lower than on the Moon.”
Really, you think the albedo of the Earth is why the Moon gets hotter?
How about because the Moon has a higher albedo, and longer days.
You don’t really get the whole story, do you?
Bumbling bobby,
You dipped into your BobbyWorld fantasy physics, and wrote –
“Really, you think the albedo of the Earth is why the Moon gets hotter?
How about because the Moon has a higher albedo, and longer days.”
Are you away with the fairies again, Bobby? You are quite mad, and making stuff up – I certainly haven’t mentioned albedo. Why would I?
Insanity suits you – you can ignore my reality, and substitute your own fantasy.
You can’t describe the GHE, and by now you are probably too scared to even claim that a GHE exists! Scared of the derisive laughter which will be yours, if you claim a GHE exists, but has no description or outcome.
Come on bobby, time to burble about something else, eh? The GHE is not your friend, is it?
Swenson, Mikey Flynn, or whomever you are,
“Are you away with the fairies again, Bobby? You are quite mad, and making stuff up I certainly havent mentioned albedo. Why would I?”
Because it is a key factor in determining what the temperature of the Moon or Earth will be.
Are you ignorant of the way to calculate the temperature of a celestial body?
So you weren’t talking about albedo when you said this?
” For example, he measured the effect of atmospheric attenuation on radiation reaching the Earth, and concluded that around 30 to 35% of the Suns radiation doesnt even reach the surface.”
Looks like you are not as smart as you think you are, not by a long shot.
Babbling bobby,
You tried for a gotcha, but failed miserably.
You wrote –
“So you werent talking about albedo when you said this?”
Obviously not, otherwise I would have used the word albedo, dont you think? Rhetorical question, of course. You didnt think – you were too busy trying to be clever.
Here’s a NASA definition of albedo “Albedo is the fraction of light that a surface reflects.”
Not appropriate when talking about radiation which doesnt even reach said surface, is it?
You wrote – “Looks like you are not as smart as you think you are, not by a long shot.”
Actually, it looks like I am. You don’t have to accept it, of course.
Carry on.
Swenson,
Does the upper surface of clouds count.
That why you have found a link on the internet that you don’t understand.
Furthermore, you have a bad number, it’s more like 23%.
It’s irrelevant to the greenhouse effect, which you have already explained for us.
ark…”So, can we please get away from personalities and imaginary grievances and stick to the science?”
Why do you take offense when someone shows greater knowledge about a subject than you? Why cant you accept that they know something you dont?
***
Because that someone is not posting scientific fact, but simply a belief that what he posts is true. All alarmists have such mistaken beliefs that they cannot possibly prove.
I take the time to point out the errors in your posts and not once have you scientifically rebutted my points.
There is simply no way to support the alarmists theories, especially the GHE and AGW. They are, and will remain, theories based on consensus. Even the IPCC cannot supply proof of the AGW theory or the GHE theory, they simply review from alarmists who cannot prove their claims.
Does “the moon’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow” qualify as “knowledge”?
AQ,
“Does the moons phases are caused by the earths shadow qualify as knowledge?”
What does that have to do with the mythical GHE? You wouldnt be trying to divert attention away from your inability to describe the mythical GHE, would you?
Only joking, of course you are!
What does that have to do with the mythical “knowledge” of Gordon? You wouldn’t be trying to divert attention away from his inability to describe a concept that most 10 year olds understand, would you?
Only joking, of course you are!
AQ,
“Does the moons phases are caused by the earths shadow qualify as knowledge?”
What does that have to do with the mythical GHE? You wouldn’t be trying to divert attention away from your inability to describe the mythical GHE, would you?
Only joking, of course you are!
Thanks for imitating me. At least you are showing some good sense, and I accept flattery in the form of imitation from anyone – even fanatical GHE cultists who can’t even describe the mythical GHE!
You could always try trolling, but you might need to lift your game.
Carry on.
I could certainly never hope to aspire to your standards set by years of practice in tr0lling.
AQ,
“Does the moons phases are caused by the earths shadow qualify as knowledge?”
What does that have to do with the mythical GHE? You wouldnt be trying to divert attention away from your inability to describe the mythical GHE, would you?
Only joking, of course you are!
Thanks for imitating me. At least you are showing some good sense, and I accept flattery in the form of imitation from anyone even fanatical GHE cultists who cant even describe the mythical GHE!
You could always try trolling, but you might need to lift your game.
Carry on.
The bots are out tonight. Perhaps one day they will actually show signs of intelligence instead of merely copy and pasting.
My crystal ball sees another copy-paste coming.
AQ,
“Does the moons phases are caused by the earths shadow qualify as knowledge?”
What does that have to do with the mythical GHE? You wouldn’t be trying to divert attention away from your inability to describe the mythical GHE, would you?
Only joking, of course you are!
Thanks for imitating me. At least you are showing some good sense, and I accept flattery in the form of imitation from anyone even fanatical GHE cultists who can’t even describe the mythical GHE!
You could always try trolling, but you might need to lift your game.
Carry on.
Mu crystal ball was right! I have a fallback should real science ever fail.
Uggh, no wonder 20% of all the posts are from Swenson.
Never in the field of human conflict has so much been said in so many posts to say so little of any use.
AQ,
“Does the moons phases are caused by the earths shadow qualify as knowledge?”
What does that have to do with the mythical GHE? You wouldn’t be trying to divert attention away from your inability to describe the mythical GHE, would you?
Only joking, of course you are!
Thanks for imitating me. At least you are showing some good sense, and I accept flattery in the form of imitation from anyone even fanatical GHE cultists who cant even describe the mythical GHE!
You could always try trolling, but you might need to lift your game.
Carry on.
Gordon Robertson,
Just because you can’t understand something doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
Your reply is a perfect example of the logical fallacy known as argument from personal incredulity.
I have “scientifically” rebutted all your “points” to such a degree that you invariably end up moving the goalposts, belittling me and calling me names, and/or abruptly terminating the discussion without explicitly acknowledging your errors. Everyone here is aware of your Modus Operandi, yet you persist, why?
I mean this in a constructive manner: you need a solid educational foundation to be able to understand the more nuanced comments. You err by habitually seeing everything from the perspective of 19th century and first year undergraduate science.
I can’t help you if you won’t help yourself.
A,
Avoiding addressing the fact that you can’t even describe the mythical GHE won’t make you look as though you can.
Writing ridiculous comments like “I cant help you if you wont help yourself.” won’t make anybody value your opinions, unless they happen to be even more gullible and ignorant than yourself.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. No GHE.
You are dreaming if you believe otherwise.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop drooling.
A,
Avoiding addressing the fact that you cant even describe the mythical GHE wont make you look as though you can.
Writing ridiculous comments like “I cant help you if you wont help yourself.” wont make anybody value your opinions, unless they happen to be even more gullible and ignorant than yourself.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. No GHE.
You are dreaming if you believe otherwise.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The effect of the geomagnetic storm is also visible over the northern polar circle.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_AMJ_NH_2024.png
I amazed at the amount of comments here. I hope Dr. Roy will still read my comment here and make a comment, whether negative or positive. I wrote a report after seeing the results for UAH for April: just click on my name to read it.
He won’t read your “report” – he never does. Nor should he … your “conclusions” are all guesswork. They are prefaced by “the only explanation I can find” and “it would appear that”, without any logical arguments or attempt to examine other possibilities. That is what happens when people know in advance what they want to find.
There are no other ‘possibilities’. But thanks for your comment. It helps me a lot, believe it or not.
Henry Pool,
Having allowed his own blog to be overtaken by a band of nattering nabobs of negativism who pollute every month’s post with hopeless hysterics, Dr Spencer usually stops reading after the first handful of comments.
After reading your report, I hope you can answer me the following question:
Based on your research, if not “CO2 from man in the air causing the extra warming of all the water and land“, what happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? Does it pass directly from the surface to outer space?
Thanks in advance
Arkady
I calculated that the amount of radiation in energy terms deflected by CO2 to earth is about the same of that back radiated by CO2 to the sun.
That leaves H20 emitted by earth and by man. Read my report. Again and again.i am not denying that a gh effect exists.
Henry Pool,
Your report doesn’t say any of that. You must mean for me to explore your blog which I’m not inclined to do, but thank you for succinctly answering the question asked.
Regarding your answer, while it is true that CO2 eventually passes IR to space, it does so from high altitudes of the atmosphere where because of lower temperature it emits a fraction of that emitted by the surface.
As CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continues to increase so does the altitude of its emission to space. Meanwhile, that extra heat energy slushing around the Earth system is absorbed by the oceans, melts icecaps and glaciers, and increases evaporation of water from the oceans.
IMHO.
Ark, you make the same mistakes are your cult.
CO2 can NOT warm the oceans. CO2 emits a 15μ photon that has such a low frequency it would have NO effect on ocean temperatures.
In simple terms, it would be like trying to boil water with ice cubes.
(You need to learn the basics instead of just repeating cult nonsense. What’s wrong with using your brain?)
There are no other “mitakes,” Puffman. But thanks for your comment. It helps me a lot, believe it or not.
A,
You wrote –
“Regarding your answer, while it is true that CO2 eventually passes IR to space, it does so from high altitudes of the atmosphere where because of lower temperature it emits a fraction of that emitted by the surface.”
All radiation emitted from the surface escapes to space. All. That’s why the surface cools.
You are quite insane, and refusing to accept reality.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature by losing energy to space.
No GHE. It is telling that you cannot even describe this mythical phenomena, just claim that other people have.
Keep trying – you can run but you can’t hide.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop drooling.
A,
You wrote
“Regarding your answer, while it is true that CO2 eventually passes IR to space, it does so from high altitudes of the atmosphere where because of lower temperature it emits a fraction of that emitted by the surface.”
All radiation emitted from the surface escapes to space. All. That’s why the surface cools.
You are quite insane, and refusing to accept reality.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature by losing energy to space.
No GHE. It is telling that you cannot even describe this mythical phenomena, just claim that other people have.
Keep trying you can run but you can’t hide.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> All radiation emitted from the surface escapes to space. All. Thats why the surface cools.
Mike Flynn, sorry sociopath, please stop trying to suggest that a surface wouldn’t cool if some radiation emitted from the surface would not escape to space.
A,
You wrote
“Regarding your answer, while it is true that CO2 eventually passes IR to space, it does so from high altitudes of the atmosphere where because of lower temperature it emits a fraction of that emitted by the surface.”
All radiation emitted from the surface escapes to space. All. Thats why the surface cools.
You are quite insane, and refusing to accept reality.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature by losing energy to space.
No GHE. It is telling that you cannot even describe this mythical phenomena, just claim that other people have.
Keep trying you can run but you cant hide.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“All radiation emitted from the surface escapes to space. All. Thats why the surface cools.”
All the heat emitted from my heated oven with the door open escapes to the room. All.
With the oven door closed, then all the heat emitted from my heated oven STILL escapes to the room. All.
Yet it will be warmer inside!
Ignoramus Swenson again demonstrates that he cannot grasp the point of oven doors or insulation in general.
I wrote – “All radiation emitted from the surface escapes to space. All. Thats why the surface cools.”
Why are you babbling about ovens in response.
Don’t you like reality?
You wrote –
“With the oven door closed, then all the heat emitted from my heated oven STILL escapes to the room. All.
Yet it will be warmer inside!”
Just like the Earth. The inside of the Earth is still more than red hot – but the surface has cooled. Just like your oven, the outside will cool after you turn it off. And just like the Earth, the oven’s interior will cool.
Why do you bother with analogies, when you can use the real thing? Don’t you understand physics?
“Yet it will be warmer inside!
with the door closed.
Just as the surface of the Earth will be warmer when the atmosphere has blocked certain IR wavelengths.
Oh well!
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Amazing. The similarities between the testimony of Willie Soon and my own story. Except than that I did not write any papers; I just did my investigative work as a hobby. But anyway, his results and my results on the climate change issue are the same. Towards the end of the interview with Tucker Carlson, Willie relates how he found God by studying mathematics
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2024/01/12/i-am-willie-soon/
I am not sure exactly what is your point, Wiillard?
Every single sentence is ART, Henry. You comparing yourself to Willie. Admitting you did not write any paper. Acting almost surprised that you agree with Willie. Underlining that Willie told Tucker that he discovered God by discovering maths.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Go drool elsewhere.
Join the club, Henry, many of us are still wondering what wee willy is talking about.
Willard is a frog.
Walter R. Hogle is a kid in a trench coat.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop pretending that your comments are relevant in this subthread.
“Mike Flynn,”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop PSTer me in my own thread like the silly sociopath that you are.
“Mike Flynn, please stop PSTer me in my own thread like the silly sociopath that you are.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to annoy and irritate like a silly sociopath.
Sorry Willard
I never studied Latin. But I am glad you did. You do not believe in God, even if all the evidence of science points towards intelligent design? (this is my translation of the applied Latin text)
> even if all
I like the way you beg questions, Henry.
“I like the way you beg questions, Henry.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, sociopathic sockpuppet, please stop playing dumb about what I just said.
“Mike Flynn, sociopathic sockpuppet, please stop playing dumb about what I just said.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
henry…wee willy believes in the gods of the IPCC. That is, false gods.
Mr. Asshat’s recent droolings include:
– molecules dont collide with other molecules
– a speedometer is actually a velocitymeter
– the outer edge only moves faster if the axis is an external axis
– there is no quantum theory for vibration
– There is no other scientific explanation for life on Earth than God.
Oh, that one might please Henry!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, silly sociopath, please stop larping as some kind of kinky hall monitor.
“Mike Flynn, silly sociopath . . .”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop mimicking Graham D. Warner under a silly sock puppet.
“Mike Flynn, please stop mimicking Graham D. Warner under a silly sock puppet.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
gbaikie says:
May 8, 2024 at 12:54 PM
” Thus, Io rotates twice as fast, but Io has 1/0,145 = 6,89 smaller average surface cp. ”
“To make it clear, Io is in lower orbit, each orbit, goes a shorter distance and at a higher orbiting velocity.”
–
But also Europa is characterized as the smoothest object in entire solar system.
So Φ.europa = 0,47 vs Φ.io = 1.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The moon’s don’t have dark side, but they have a farside.
But wondering if they have dark side from radiation from Jupiter.
Or radiation due Jupiter magnetosphere is suppose to a big problem for landing on these Moon, but it seems on their farside it seems it should be less.
Now don’t get Jupiter shine, but you would get moon shine from other moons.
“But wondering if they have dark side from radiation from Jupiter. ”
No.
If the radiation was EMR, putting the mass of a moon between you and the source would protect you.
Unfortunately the radiation is fast-moving charges particles trapped by Jupiter’s magnetic field, which move in all directions.
Anything orbiting in Jupiter’s equivalent of the Van Allen belts will bombarded from all directions.
“Anything orbiting in Jupiters equivalent of the Van Allen belts will bombarded from all directions.”
If there anything big Van Allen belt, it seems it would locally reduce the effect of Van Allen belts.
Or if had spacecraft, with moderate amounts of shielding on 1/2 of it, and 10 times shielding on other side of it. That side having 10 times much should reduce radiation, as compared to it having same amount of shielding as other side.
Rather than spacecraft, one could think of large brick houses in Van Allen belts. And as some weird in sense of fashion the brick house could have 1/2 of it, have 10 times thicker bricks. Or Maybe that side is main enterance, and it’s a fortress entrance, due visitors possibly screwing up coming to visit it. Or as I said it is just mostly some fashionable consideration.
Arkady
The answer you are looking for is in footnote k) of the referenced report.
Henry Pool,
Your footnote k) only discusses light scattering without any mention of the vibrational energy interactions of IR light with atmospheric molecules.
“the molecule begins to behave like a very small spherical mirror. You can compare it a bit with turning on your headlights in foggy weather: the light goes back to the source.”
You seem oblivious to the existence of the whole field of Molecular Spectroscopy.
A,
You wrote –
“Your footnote k) only discusses light scattering without any mention of the vibrational energy interactions of IR light with atmospheric molecules.”
Arkady, you can’t even describe the mythical GHE!
Banging on about “vibrational energy interactions” just makes people think that you are a fanatical GHE cultist, parroting irrelevant information you found on the internet.
The surface cools at night, “vibrational energy interactions” notwithstanding. You can’t say why, because you have no clue about the interaction between light and matter, as Feynman would put it.
Do you actually believe in a GHE, or is your implied belief just a sham?
Mike Flynn,
Please stop drooling.
A,
You wrote
“Your footnote k) only discusses light scattering without any mention of the vibrational energy interactions of IR light with atmospheric molecules.”
Arkady, you cant even describe the mythical GHE!
Banging on about “vibrational energy interactions” just makes people think that you are a fanatical GHE cultist, parroting irrelevant information you found on the internet.
The surface cools at night, “vibrational energy interactions” notwithstanding. You can’t say why, because you have no clue about the interaction between light and matter, as Feynman would put it.
Do you actually believe in a GHE, or is your implied belief just a sham?
Willard, please stop trolling.
> just makes people think
Please stop blaming others for your abusive behavior like a clueless sociopath, Mike Flynn.
A,
You wrote
“Your footnote k) only discusses light scattering without any mention of the vibrational energy interactions of IR light with atmospheric molecules.”
Arkady, you cant even describe the mythical GHE!
Banging on about “vibrational energy interactions” just makes people think that you are a fanatical GHE cultist, parroting irrelevant information you found on the internet.
The surface cools at night, “vibrational energy interactions” notwithstanding. You cant say why, because you have no clue about the interaction between light and matter, as Feynman would put it.
Do you actually believe in a GHE, or is your implied belief just a sham?
Willard, please stop trolling. You just make yourself look as stupid as you are.
> you cant describe
Mike Flynn, please stop lying.
Just thought I’d point out that low ozone levels have persisted for 4 years in a row.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
That’s despite our efforts to reduce CFCs. After we passe the law about CFCs another hole opened up over the other Pole.
And here we are trying to ban CO2 to fix something that ain’t broke.
If a foton cannot get through the molecule, as per IR spectra, it is mirrored back. Same wavelength as the one obstructed. I showed this as we can measure it coming back to us via the moon.There can be no heating as there is no mass, co2 is a single molecule, amongst 10000, they do not stick together like water vapor, vdWaals etc
henry, I think modeling EM as a particle is pretty dumb in the first place. It is obviously far more complicated. For one, the so-called photon has a frequency and particles don’t have frequencies.
We know that EM’s power decreases with the square of the distance traveled (inverse square law). That suggests a wave dispersing from a central location, not a particle.
Electrons in atom respond to a field vibrating at a certain frequency. That’s how EM is absorbed in an atom. Problem is, there are bazzilions of frequencies making up the EM that reaches Earth. If there were bazillions of particles flowing though space, the odds of them hitting an electron would be minimal. It’s obvious that EM has to be a complex interactions of wave fronts.
Reflection suggests something like a mirror which can reflect EM at the same angle it struck the mirror. I don’t think we know yet how EM interacts with atoms. All we know, and it’s still a theory, is that EM of a discrete frequency can interact with an electron in an atom and excite electrons in the atom.
Having said that, we know that EM of certain frequencies is absorbed by a material and the rest is rejected. That’s why we see different materials as certain colours.
Children!
Do not pay attention to this deranged old man.
He is hallucinating again.
Somebody get him to take his medications!
DMT…if I am deranged then you are an utter ‘more on’. You lack the ability to objectively prove me wrong. I’ll bet you can’t chew gum and tie your shoe laces at the same time.
gordon, as usual, you’re clogging the blog with nonsense you don’t understand.
You’re confusing photons with flux. You can’t understand any of this. Flux is affected by the inverse square law, but photons aren’t. Photons possess the same wavelength/frequency/energy unless absorbed by matter.
You can’t even fake a knowledge of science, just like you can’t fake being an engineer.
Why are you here?
Henry,
You wrote –
“If a foton cannot get through the molecule, as per IR spectra, it is mirrored back. Same wavelength as the one obstructed.”
Not necessarily. An electron may interact with a photon, subsequently emitting a photon of lesser energy, the energy difference being observed as a transfer of momentum to an atom.
For example, ice may absorb higher frequency photons than it is emitting, use some of the absorbed energy to become water, and emit lower frequency photons commensurate with its temperature. In turn, the water may absorb photons of higher frequency than it is emitting, and convert some of the momentum to motion, turning into a gas.
In the absence of sufficiently energetic photons, the gas will emit photons of wavelengths dependent on temperature, lose energy, become water, then ice, all the way to absolute zero in the absence of external energy input.
Of course, absorbed energy can be transformed into internal motion – vibrational, rotational, etc.
Over 150 years ago, Prof John Tyndall wrote a book titled “Heat – a mode of motion”. Pretty descriptive title, as it turned out.
swenson…when Tyndall wrote about a mode of motion he knew nothing about electrons, EM, or photons. He was talking about the physical motion of solid particles. Like Clausius, Tyndall had an uncanny insight into atomic motion even though neither knew anything about electrons or EM.
Don’t take me the wrong way, I am not taking a shot at you. We don’t agree on some things and I’m OK with that. Having said that, you know how I feel about photons, a fantasy description put forward by Compton in 1928. Photon means light and light is only a part of the EM spectrum.
Compton got his idea from Einstein who used some fudging based on his relativity theory to give a quantum of EM properties it could not possibly have. The photon has no mass therefore cannot have a momentum. Unless…you invent a sci-fi space-time to define it otherwise.
Actually, Einstein came up with the idea of EM as a particle. However, by the end of life, he still questioned that theory, claiming that no one knows whether EM is a wave or particles. The particle notion fitted his photo-electric theory but even at that, he was describing a quantum of energy with a definite frequency, hence not a particle. It could be that others claimed the particle part and not Einstein.
You likely regard me as an ijit for questioning the likes of Einstein and Feynman, but, hey, what can I say, I am a Scot. We are noted for pointing out inconvenient facts such as the Emperor not wearing clothes or making astute observations that Godiva was riding a horse.
Sorry, but I can’t get into redefining time to make relativity theory work then using that fraudulent relationship to give a massless photon momentum.
My understanding of how EM energy excites an electron is as follows. The EM field is comprised of an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. Electrons interact with both as is known from work with electric currents in a conductor. Also, in a cathode ray tube. There is no reason why an electron bound to an atom should not do the same.
In fact, the electrons, with a very high angular frequency, needs the exact frequency being applied to it in order to excite it in orbit. That has also been verified by experiment. I am wondering about harmonics of such frequencies such as 2x, 3x, 4x, etc. the frequency of the angular frequency.
I was asking for you all and dr Roy to look at the recommendation flowing from my report. Click on my name.It is unfair to report on the warming of water and land as most land is in the NH. We should rather report on Nh and Sh separately and then give an average global result.
Blessings.
Henry
And… why don’t you follow your own recommendation, and present us the difference between
– UAH Globe
and
– (UAH NH+UAH SH)/2
for land and water, respectively?
Because I am sure Henry has better things to do than following the rants of an uber-alarmist.
henry…thanks for you study.
Walter Hogle, another poster here, and myself, have discussed this. We have reasoned that the global average is a statistical anomaly rather than a fact. In your study you state…
“The highest rate of warming is observed in the Arctic, above the 70 degree latitude”.
I have stated several times that there are areas in the Arctic that show an anomaly of +5C. If you wait a month, that anomaly has relocated to another part of the Arctic. There are areas in the Antarctic that show the opposite, about -4C. It’s obvious that the +1C warming is nothing more than an average between such extremes.
BTW…I am not denying that warming has occurred since 1850, following the end of the Little Ice Age, but that was expected. I am denying that such warming is in any way related to a trace gas.
Roy has briefly commented on this in the past suggesting it may be related to ocean currents.
More…
This UAH page shows the anomalies moving month to month. Look at bottom of page to find a tab to ‘Visit the Archives’ for a month by month report.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
“We have reasoned that the global average is a statistical anomaly rather than a fact.”
followed by
“.. I am not denying that warming has occurred since 1850..”
Children – can you spot the logical error here?
This is what happens when the brain deteriorates.
Are you really as obtuse as you appear? There is no contradiction. I was talking abut a global average being fiction, I did not claim there had been no warming, just the notion of a global average meaning anything.
Some idiot wrote –
“Children can you spot the logical error here?
This is what happens when the brain deteriorates.”
DMT, please stop trolling. When you can describe the mythical GHE, let me know, if you wish.
I won’t waste time waiting.
ark…”…while it is true that CO2 eventually passes IR to space, it does so from high altitudes of the atmosphere where because of lower temperature it emits a fraction of that emitted by the surface”.
***
Meaning that most surface IR escapes straight to space. Don’t forget that CO2 concentrations, like the other atmospheric gases, diminishes in concentration with altitude. At the peak of Everest near 30,000 feet, oxygen and nitrogen are 1/3rd their concentration at sea level. At 50,000 feet air density is 13% of the density at sea level, and 50,000 feet is low compared to the upper atmosphere.
In essence, by the time any significant altitude is reached, the amount of CO2 is almost zero. How does such a low level of CO2 emit anything to space?
The notion that CO2 plays a role in any warming or heat dissipation is sheer fiction.
Tragic – isn’t it?
What’s really tragic is your inability to do science.
Before you “do science” you must first understand it. That means getting a recognised science (not an engineering) degree.
Reading Science for Dummies is insufficient.
Only a major ijit would make such a statement about engineering. We take the same math and physics courses as any other science with the exception that we study honours level physics and math and twice as much as any other discipline.
An engineering undergrad has a total hours per week exceeding 40 hours (44 for Civils) whereas the average science student has no more than about 30. That is, in part, which engineering is so tough, the work load is immense.
If you want to apply science, first you have to ***LEARN*** it. What the heck do you think we do in Applied Science?
DMT,
“Before you “do science” you must first understand it. That means getting a recognised science (not an engineering) degree.
Reading Science for Dummies is insufficient.”
Anybody who uses the phrase “do science” is not using the word “science” correctly. As Feynman said “When someone says ‘science teaches such and such”, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesnt teach it; experience teaches it.” I agree with Feynman. In your opinion, we may both be wrong. If people prefer your opinion to mine, they are free to do so. Feynman agrees with me – who agrees with you?
Some people refer to Gavin Schmidt as a “climate scientist”, even though he has no “science” qualifications of any sort. Michael Mann has a higher science degree, but is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat. Neither can describe the GHE, of course. There is no GHE, even though people with higher degrees in “science” assert there is – it just cannot be described!
DMT, please stop trolling.
> Anybody who uses the phrase do science is not using the word science correctly.
Mike Flynn, obtuse sock puppet, please stop playing silly semantic games that rest on a misunderstanding of a conception of science as a process, not a result.
Nether of you have science degrees – it is so obvious.
DMT,
You wrote –
“Nether of you have science degrees it is so obvious.”
If you have an English degree, it didn’t stop you from being sloppy, and spelling “neither” as “nether”.
If you are convinced you can read my mind, you are quite mad. You have no idea of my qualifications, not that it would make any difference to the fact that you cannot describe the mythical GHE!
Gavin Schmidt doesn’t have a science degree – is it so obvious? Only joking, your bizarre quasi-appeals to authority aren’t helping you to appear intelligent. Try providing some facts – at present, you even lack the backbone to claim that a “greenhouse effect” exists!
How sad is that?
“An engineering undergrad has a total hours per week exceeding 40 hours (44 for Civils) whereas the average science student has no more than about 30.”
No engineering undergrad attends 40 hours a week of lectures.
It’s been almost 50 years since I finished my undergrad, but I don’t think an engineering student can spend more than 24 hours a week in lectures (labs included) and be successful. You need study time, homework, research, and independent study.
In my day, being a straight A student required 3 hours of study time for every hour spent in class. Unless you’re the beneficiary of a social promotion program, I doubt that’s changed much.
“Don’t forget that CO2 concentrations, like the other atmospheric gases, diminishes in concentration with altitude.”
Here’s my source that says you’re wrong: https://ibb.co/mNK7rhS
Where’s your source?
Gordon Robertson
You’ve just described the process.
The significant altitude is the tropopause, about 10km.
Below that altitude the density of CO2 is large enough to absor*b and re-emit significant amounts of IR.
Above that altitude the density of CO2 is small enough that IR emitted upwards by CO2 molecules near the tropopause has a free path to space.
EM,
As you say, “and re-emit”. No “heat trapping”.
The fact that the surface cools at night shows that all the radiation which leaves the surface – leaves the surface!
And goes somewhere cooler – outer space.
Hence, four and a half billion years of global cooling, continuous sunlight notwithstanding.
You don’t have to accept reality if you don’t want to.
If you could describe the mythical GHE, Im sure you would, but you can’t.
ark…”what happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earths surface? Does it pass directly from the surface to outer space?
***
Of course it does, 95% of it.
If I said
“radiative transfer equation”
would you be able to understand what I was saying?
DMT,
Does the “radiative transfer equation” have anything to do with the GHE that you can’t describe?
Maybe you can describe the role of the radiative transfer equation in the Earth having cooled to its present temperature? Or maybe its role in the surface cooling at night?
Have you copied the words “radiative transfer equation” from somewhere, trying to appear intelligent, and disguise the fact that you know that the GHE does not exist, but you don’t want to admit it?
As Fourier wrote –
“Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself”. In other words, four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has not been able to prevent the Earth from cooling.
Do you disagree? No? No GHE, then, or can you describe it?
I didn’t think so.
Mike Flynn, please stop asking for that silly sammich you got served at least a thousand times already.
“Sammich”?
You are insane.
Willard, please stop trolling.
As I thought.
No idea at all (or, impolitely, NFI).
Please stop playing dumb over the concept of sammich request, Mike Flynn, clueless sociopath that play acts a silly sock puppet.
“Please stop playing dumb over the concept of sammich request, Mike Flynn, clueless sociopath that play acts a silly sock puppet.”
You are insane, living in a fantasy. Your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” is an indication of your delusional state.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, puerile sociopath, please stop pretending you ever studied epistemology, philosophy of science, history of science, sociology of science, or other disciplines that show you’re idealizing science as an ultimate repository of absolute truths instead of a web of products by human scientists.
You are insane, living in a fantasy. Your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” is an indication of your delusional state.
Babbling about “epistemology, philosophy of science, history of science, sociology of science, . . . ” is unlikely to make anybody accept that your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” is the sign of exceptional scientific knowledge.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to deny that people can’t grasp that science is a human endeavor, more so under an obnoxious sock puppet.
Willard, you wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop trying to deny that people can’t grasp that science is a human endeavor, more so under an obnoxious sock puppet.”
If you could translate that into plain English, it would just as stupid.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to play dumb over the fact that science advances one funeral at a time.
“Mike Flynn, please stop trying to play dumb over the fact that science advances one funeral at a time.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop imitating Graham D. Warner, whom has little else in life than to PSTer Team Science.
If the GAT is a “fiction” how do you know there has been a warming?
It can show warming, but we can’t know the rate over time, and as a result, the cause of the warming.
Huh??
Either it is a fiction or it isn’t.
Make up your mind.
It’s fiction.
DMT,
Don’t appear more silly than you need to.
Writing “Huh??
Either it is a fiction or it isnt.
Make up your mind.” may be intended to be gratuitously offensive, but it may not work.
Who would bother taking offence from an idiot who implies the existence of a GHE which they cannot describe?
Not me, that’s for sure. Thermometers respond to heat. Warming is due to heat. CO2 provides no heat, but the processes which produce CO2 do produce heat.
Maybe you are just confused about cause and effect.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to become Walter R. Hogle’s red shirt.
“Mike Flynn, please stop trying to become Walter R. Hogles red shirt.”
You are obviously insane.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“You are obviously insane.”
Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet, please stop gaslighting.
Don’t take my word for it. Go look at hourly data and see for yourself what nonsense an hourly average temperature, and therefore a daily, monthly, and yearly average, is.
Walter,
If “its fiction”, then how do you know it has been warming?
I could just as easily claim “it’s cooling”.
How could you prove me wrong?
Because the real world has shown evidence of a warming trend, so the rise generally reflects the warming. Key emphasis on *generally*.
My point is specific to the accuracy of the data points.
DMT,
Rather than posing stupid and irrelevant gotchas, why not just admit that you cannot actually describe the mythical GHE?
How hard would it be?
Obviously too hard for a fanatical GHE cultist.
You could always claim that everybody else has described the GHE, so you don’t need to!
That might work – or you might just appear really, really, stupid!
Who knows?
> why not just admit that you cannot actually describe the mythical GHE?
Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet, please drop that 10-year old gotcha.
Willard, why not just admit that you cannot actually describe the mythical GHE?
Or do you wish to maintain your stupid description “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, garrulous sociopath, please stop trying to make your silly gotcha relevant everywhere you go.
Willard, why not just admit that you cannot actually describe the mythical GHE?
Or do you wish to maintain your stupid description “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, egregious sociopath, please stop repeating lies that make you look sillier than you already are under your sock puppet.
Willard, why not just admit that you cannot actually describe the mythical GHE?
Or do you wish to maintain your stupid description “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Do you even believe that a GHE exists?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop acting like you never saw a description of the greenhouse effect –
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop acting like you never saw a description of the greenhouse effect ”
and then proceed, in your usual idiotic fashion, to appeal to Mike Flynn, who says clearly”Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me.”
Your link presumably does not even mention the words “description” or “greenhouse effect”, such words appearing only in your tortured fantasies! You are not looking terribly smart, Willard, if the only authorities to whom you can appeal keep telling you that you are an idiot for describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
You are looking more insanely desperate each day! When I tell you repeatedly that the GHE is a myth, you keep rejecting reality and claim that I believe it exists!
You are quite mad, Willard.
[openly laughing at deranged cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop lying about not being Mike Flynn.
Willard, you fool, you wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop lying about not being Mike Flynn.”
How could Mike Flynn possibly lie about being Mike Flynn?
If you are saying that Mike Flynn is not really Mike Flynn, but is lying about it, obviously I will agree with you, if it will keep you calm.
Maybe you think I am lying about being me (whoever I am), but I have to disagree, on the grounds that you would have to be insane to think that I am not who I am. Of course I am, regardless of whether it suits you or not! That makes you insane, doesn’t it?
Maybe you should just stick to idiotic descriptions of the GHE like “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Or you could claim you have never described the GHE at all! Would you be lying or not?
Mike Flynn, please stop making a silly sociopath of yourself.
Willard, you fool, you wrote
“Mike Flynn, please stop lying about not being Mike Flynn.”
How could Mike Flynn possibly lie about being Mike Flynn?
If you are saying that Mike Flynn is not really Mike Flynn, but is lying about it, obviously I will agree with you, if it will keep you calm.
Maybe you think I am lying about being me (whoever I am), but I have to disagree, on the grounds that you would have to be insane to think that I am not who I am. Of course I am, regardless of whether it suits you or not! That makes you insane, doesnt it?
Maybe you should just stick to idiotic descriptions of the GHE like “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Or you could claim you have never described the GHE at all! Would you be lying or not?
Who would know?
Mike Flynn, please stop acting like a silly sock puppet.
We are not talking about the measurement of warming in one station, or hundreds of stations, we are talking about how it is averaged to claim a 1C overall warming.
The sats do a much better job than individual thermometers taking 2 readings a day and averaging them. However, when you have a 9C discrepancy between highs in small areas of the Arctic and lows in the Antarctic, how can you average them and claim a 1C warming as meaning anything?
That’s the point we are trying to make, that claiming a 1C global average has absolutely no physical meaning. It does not apply equally to all parts of the planet.
You are totally confused.
If GAT “has absolutely no physical meaning” then how do you know if there is warming or cooling?
You claim it is warming, but how do you know?
Both LSAT and satellite data have undergone adjustments to fix systematic errors.
We can’t know the values at the time of observations absent those biases, so the adjustments meant to correct them just add uncertainty.
And since the new monthly anomalies are deviations calculated from those past adjusted values, the uncertainty propagates into those as well.
I respect Spencer, and I think he does the best he can, but at the end of the day, it’s still adjusted data.
walter…I don’t think adjustments are the problem. They had some significant adjustment around 2005 that were taken care of but where the errors fell within the announced margin of error and only in the Tropics.
I think any problems that may occur come from the method of retrieving temperature data from oxygen molecules. Although the telemetry will measure to the surface, UAH has rejected true surface measurements due to microwave energy being emitted at the surface. Therefore they must interpolate temperatures to the surface.
Still, UAH compares those interpolated temps to radiosonde data and they compare favourably. Then again, how accurate is radiosonde data? The sensors, whether thermometers or semiconductors, depend on air density for their readings, and as the telemetry gets higher, the ever-thinnig air density must become suspect in its ability to deliver accurate temperature measurement.
Gordon,
The main point is that those errors cannot be fixed unless someone invents time travel. Each and every day, the conditions are different.
Orbital drift, for example, isn’t an error that affects all of the data points the same. Variations in atmospheric density or solar activity affect the stability of the satellite in orbit.
Regarding radiosonde data, I know that they transmit data back to the ground station via radio waves. That transmission can be interrupted or lost.
Every single measurement has measurement uncertainty. The only way today’s science can begin to justify uncertainty to the hundredth digit is if they follow the conditions of repeatability:
B.2.15 repeatability (of results of measurements)
Closeness of the agreement between the results of successive measurements of the same measurand carried out under the same conditions of measurement.
NOTE 1 These conditions are called repeatability conditions.
NOTE 2 Repeatability conditions include:
The same measurement procedure
The same observer
The same measuring instrument, use under the same conditions
The same location
Repetition over a short period of time
NOTE 3 Repeatability may be expressed quantitatively in terms of the dispersion characteristics of the results.
Klint Klown…”Youre confusing photons with flux. You cant understand any of this. Flux is affected by the inverse square law, but photons arent”.
***
One of the more stoopid posts by you. Flux, according to Newton, is the amount of energy passing through an area per unit time. In magnetism theory they call flux ‘lines of force’. The number of lines of force (Gauss) is the magnetic flux density.
You keep ranting that flux is not energy. What else can it be but a measur of energy intensity over an area? That’s why the photon theory is so stoopid, it was developed to portray EM as a particle, and that’s why photon theory is inconsistent with flux theory.
How the heck can photon theory not be governed by the inverse square law? You make it sound as if EM has nothing to do with photons.
There you go again gordon, clogging the blog with your useless babbling.
This issue is NOT about magnetic fields. You’re as confused about the science as is the GHE cult. Your history here is one of a lonesome loser trying to fake it.
And, energy has about as much to do with flux as distance has to do with speed.
You don’t understand any of this.
Yep. Totally agree for once.
GR is just a run of the mill engineer with pretensions to be a scientist. He has NFI.
DMT,
I suppose that would make Gavin Schmidt a run of the mill mathematician with pretensions to be a scientist, would it?
You might be capable of thinking that “climate science” exists as a valid scientific field of study! You might as well think that political science, social science, and domestic science are based on the application of the scientific method.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. No science there. Are you ignorant as well as gullible? Does it not worry you that nobody can describe the GHE?
Obviously not.
Carry on.
Swenson, have you heard of the radiative transfer equation.
No?
Well then, I suggest you put a sock in it.
DMT,
I suppose that would make Gavin Schmidt a (run of the mill mathematician with pretensions) to be a scientist, would it?
You might be capable of thinking that “climate science” exists as a valid scientific field of study! You might as well think that political science, social science, and domestic science are based on the application of the scientific method.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. No science there. Are you ignorant as well as gullible? Does it not worry you that nobody can describe the GHE?
Obviously not. Do you think that the “radiative transfer equation” might help you to describe the GHE? I don’t believe it will, but feel free to surprise me!
Carry on.
Klint the Klown…EM is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. For cripes sake, that is basic science.
You are thoroughly confused about field theory. That should be apparent when a dimmwit like DMT starts kissing up to you in agreement.
Mr. Asshat, please stop clogging up the blog while pretending you’re some kind of engineer whence you’re at best an hifi repairman.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re just clogging the blog again, gordon.
DMT doesn’t know half of what I know about you. I know you never completed an engineering program. My guess is you flunked out somewhere about thermodynamics. You have no knowledge of even the basics. You don’t understand current flow. You never made it to information theory, where you would have learned about the advances to entropy.
You don’t even know what time it is.
Perhaps, but does he claim that the far side of the Moon has the same velocity as the near side, like you do?
Then YOU have no knowledge of even the basics, do you.
Child Nate, when you grow up and have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, then we can discuss orbital motions.
Until then, don’t play with matches.
Puffman –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666282
Oddly enough, I have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, while you have nothing.
Come back when you have something coherent, consistent and consilient.
Yes Ent, we’ve already heard about your passenger jets that fly backward.
Likely all of your opinions are just as backward….
Atmosphere of Venus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Height Temp. Atmospheric pressure
(km) (oC)……….(atm)
0 ….. 462 … 92.10
5 ….. 424 … 66.65
10 …. 385 … 47.39
15 …. 348 … 33.04
20 …. 306 … 22.52
25 …. 264 … 14.93
30 …. 222 … 9.851
35 …. 180 … 5.917
40 …. 143 … 3.501
45 …. 110 … 1.979
50 …. 75 … 1.066
55 …. 27 … 0.531 4
60 …. −10 … 0.235 7
65 …. −30 … 0.097 65
70 …. −43 … 0.036 90
80 …. −76 … 0.004 760
90 …. −104 .. 0.000 373 6
100 … −112 .. 0.000 026 60
Venus has a runaway atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Albedo a = 0,76 (Bond), S= 2601 W/m2
(1 – 0,76)*2601 W/m2 = 624 W/m2
Earth Albedo a = 0,306 (Bond), So = 1361 W/m2
(1 – 0,306)*1361 W/m2 = 945 W/m2
Let’s compare:
Earth 945 W/m2 1 atm., CO2 0,04%, 14 (oC)
Venus 624 W/m2 0,235 atm., CO2 96,5%, -10 (oC)
Venus
624/945 = 0,66
0,235*96,5 = 22,68
0,66*22,68 = 14,97
Earth
945/945 = 1
1*0,04 = 0,04
1*0,04 = 0,04
Let’s continue the Venus/Earth comparison :
14,97/0,04 = 374 times more CO2 but the temperature is -10(oC)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This is pure rubbish. None of your ratios make sense.
Did you know that the planetary mean temperature is independent of CO2?
(Only the surface temperature changes with CO2)
Did you know that the stratosphere cools when CO2 increases?
Have you heard of the radiative transfer equation?
My advice: enrol in a basic science course and stop wasting your time.
Thank you, DMT, for your response.
“My advice: enrol in a basic science course and stop wasting your time.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
DMT,
You wrote –
“My advice: enrol in a basic science course and stop wasting your time.”
You can’t describe the GHE, can you?
Do you think that enrolling in a “basic science” course will help? You might be able to name someone who values your advice, but I doubt it.
Gavin Schmidt (pretend “climate scientist”) might well benefit from your advice, but even he will likely ignore your silliness.
You’re pretty stupid, aren’t you? Why should anybody value your opinion?
You don’t sound all thst persuasive.
Swenson,
I take it that you are aggrieved at something I said.
Was it the NFI jibe? or maybe the “put a sock in it” advice ?
or maybe my mentioning of the radiative transfer equation ?
Whatever it was, I am sure it was well deserved.
Cheers,
DMT
p.s. Gavin says hello.
DMT, you keep mentioning the “radiative transfer equation”. Do you understand it has NOTHING to do with radiative heat transfer?
You’re not just throwing crap against the wall, are you?
Try studying (for example):
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ross/Science/RadTrans.pdf
Another kid on his damn phone.
DMT, you keep mentioning the “radiative transfer equation”. Do you understand it has NOTHING to do with radiative heat transfer?
You’re not avoiding my question, are you?
clint…no heat is transferred via radiation. Heat is lost at the instant radiation is created therefore radiation contains no heat to transfer. If it did, then heat could be transferred cold to hot as well as hot to cold. Surely you have not joined the alarmists, although you might as well since you attack skeptics as well.
gordon, now you’re not only clogging the blog, you’re also making false accusations.
As I recall, YOU don’t even understand the thermodynamic definition of “heat”.
Quit trying to fake it. Get a life.
Children,
solving the radiative transfer equation leads to:
https://tinyurl.com/yc648bey
DMT,
Oh dear, appealing to the authority of another commercial enterprise flogging its modelling expertise.
Complete nonsense.
If you can’t see any inconsistencies in their brightly coloured graphic, then you are even more stupid than you appear so far.
You really are gullible and ignorant, aren’t you? Doesnt it concern you that you can’t find an authority who can describe the mythical GHE?
Maybe you are happy with “not cooling, slower cooling”, or “the GHE is a stack of blankets”?
Not prepared to say? Colour me unsurprised!
Carry on.
“Venus has a runaway atmospheric greenhouse effect”
In fantasy land Venus maybe.
Almost as preposterous as ever having liquid water on the surface of Venus.
Venus has been cooking off its water for billions of years.
When it runs out and it’s induced magnetic field collapses, I wonder how long it will take for the solar wind to blow away the rest of its atmosphere.
“I wonder how long it will take for the solar wind to blow away the rest of its atmosphere.”
In terms of theories, Sol is suppose to turn into white dwarf. But long before that, it’s suppose to kill every thing. Sol might engulf Earth, but has higher chance of engulfing Venus.
I hope we become spacefaring civilization fairly soon. But I suppose most assume in million years, human are spacefaring or dead or something.
In terms being spacefaring, a trillion people could be living in Venus orbit and few million on it’s surface. The clouds will be mined, and without clouds, Venus gets colder. But with trillion humans in orbit, they will block the planet’s sunlight, which would a greater cooling effect than removing it’s clouds
Here is another study to scare people. They just make things up and then claim to be doing science.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hottest-summer-in-2000-years-2023-northern-hemisphere/
They also claim they can determine 2,000 year-old temperature data accurate to 0.1 C:
“the Northern Hemisphere experienced its hottest summer over the past 2,000 years by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius.”
Then there is the usual hype about what “we” must do:
“this trend will continue unless we reduce greenhouse gas emissions dramatically”
“We end up with longer and more severe heat waves and extended periods of drought”
“the world needs to take action to try to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times”
After Michael Mann has worked so hard to erase the Little Ice Age, we have this:
“they found that it was actually cooler in pre-industrial times than what was thought when accounting for extended cold periods”
“clearly demonstrates the unparalleled nature of present-day warmth at large spatial scales and reinforces calls for immediate action towards net zero emissions.”
“Despite the inability to develop fully worldwide temperature reconstructions and analysis, the researchers said “We are obviously idiots, but nobody will realise it because we say we are experts. Nobody doubts experts, do they?””
Might as well doubt Papal infallibility in respect to Roman Catholic dogma. I have far more faith in Papal infallibility (and I do not follow the teachings of the Church of Rome) than the witless pronouncements of fanatical GHE cultists.
Pretending that GHE cultism is science, when its adherents cannot even describe the GHE, shows that GHE true believers are truly delusional.
All good fun, as long as no physical or mental harm results, I suppose.
Tim S: They also claim they can determine 2,000 year-old temperature data accurate to 0.1 C
Patently False. Esper et al. 2024 report the 95% CI on the previous record set in 246 CE as -0.03 to +1.50 C with a best estimate of 0.88 C. That’s not even remotely close to 0.1 C.
My apologies if you missed the sarcasm and hyperbole in my statement. The whole thing is a joke, and that is a fact. They are not publishing science, they are publishing political opinion. Those are real quotes from CBS News. These purely political quotes have no place in any sober scientific report that relies solely on speculative assumptions:
“unless we reduce”
“We end up with longer and more severe”
“the world needs to take action”
“
One more:
“reinforces calls for immediate action”
Once more, contrarians’ favorite Mike has a MWP that is higher than many others.
Imagine if they lukewarmingly tried to emphasize the MWP and to lower climate sensitivity by appealing to their infinite ignorance at the same time…
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Once more, contrarians favorite Mike has a MWP that is higher than many others.”
You wouldn’t be silly enough to claim that the variation in temperatures indicated by the graph were a result of a GHE which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”, are you?
In that case, the GHE would not only create “not cooling, slower cooling”, but also “not warming, slower warming” – or something equally ridiculous!
Any graphs of historical temperature variations are curiosities, and of almost no use whatsoever. Measuring the outputs of a chaotic system exhibiting chaotic behaviour is a pointless exercise in general. From a paper in Nature – “But, classic chaos-detection tools are highly sensitive to measurement noise and break down for common edge cases, making it difficult to detect chaos in domains, like biology, where measurements are noisy”
The authors go on to claim that they have developed a simple tool, which is “almost perfect”, that is, it can show if a system is acting chaotically, most of the time, except when they find out to their chagrin, that it doesnt.
Can Michael Mann, or any of the other self proclaimed “experts” show the presence (or not) of chaos in their fabricated “data”? You are as naive and gullible as the “authorities” to whom you appeal.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet, inconsequential sociopath, please stop writing walls of words even I won’t read.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Once more, contrarians favorite Mike has a MWP that is higher than many others.”
You wouldnt be silly enough to claim that the variation in temperatures indicated by the graph were a result of a GHE which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”, are you?
In that case, the GHE would not only create “not cooling, slower cooling”, but also “not warming, slower warming” or something equally ridiculous!
Any graphs of historical temperature variations are curiosities, and of almost no use whatsoever. Measuring the outputs of a chaotic system exhibiting chaotic behaviour is a pointless exercise in general. From a paper in Nature “But, classic chaos-detection tools are highly sensitive to measurement noise and break down for common edge cases, making it difficult to detect chaos in domains, like biology, where measurements are noisy”
The authors go on to claim that they have developed a simple tool, which is almost perfect, that is, it can show if a system is acting chaotically, most of the time, except when they find out to their chagrin, that it doesn’t.
Can Michael Mann, or any of the other self proclaimed “experts” show the presence (or not) of chaos in their fabricated “data”? You are as naive and gullible as the “authorities” to whom you appeal.
Carry on. You might try saying something like “Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet, inconsequential sociopath, please stop writing walls of words even I won’t read.”
You don’t have to read anything you don’t want to. Can’t you help yourself? No self control?
[laughing at fanatical GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop forcing me to make TS looks more sillier than he is, for instance by reminding everyone that he’s confusing Mike with the Deming Affair.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Once more, contrarians favorite Mike has a MWP that is higher than many others.”
You wouldn’t be silly enough to claim that the variation in temperatures indicated by the graph were a result of a GHE which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”, are you?
In that case, the GHE would not only create “not cooling, slower cooling”, but also “not warming, slower warming” or something equally ridiculous!
Any graphs of historical temperature variations are curiosities, and of almost no use whatsoever. Measuring the outputs of a chaotic system exhibiting chaotic behaviour is a pointless exercise in general. From a paper in Nature “But, classic chaos-detection tools are highly sensitive to measurement noise and break down for common edge cases, making it difficult to detect chaos in domains, like biology, where measurements are noisy”
The authors go on to claim that they have developed a simple tool, which is almost perfect, that is, it can show if a system is acting chaotically, most of the time, except when they find out to their chagrin, that it doesn’t.
Can Michael Mann, or any of the other self proclaimed “experts” show the presence (or not) of chaos in their fabricated “data”? You are as naive and gullible as the “authorities” to whom you appeal.
Carry on. You might try saying something like “Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet, inconsequential sociopath, please stop writing walls of words even I wont read.”
You dont have to read anything you dont want to. Cant you help yourself? No self control?
[laughing even louder at fanatical GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop poisoning the well of a fellow contrarian.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Once more, contrarians favorite Mike has a MWP that is higher than many others.”
You wouldnt be silly enough to claim that the variation in temperatures indicated by the graph were a result of a GHE which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”, are you?
In that case, the GHE would not only create “not cooling, slower cooling”, but also “not warming, slower warming”, or something equally ridiculous!
Any graphs of historical temperature variations are curiosities, and of almost no use whatsoever. Measuring the outputs of a chaotic system exhibiting chaotic behaviour is a pointless exercise in general. From a paper in Nature “But, classic chaos-detection tools are highly sensitive to measurement noise and break down for common edge cases, making it difficult to detect chaos in domains, like biology, where measurements are noisy”.
The authors go on to claim that they have developed a simple tool, which is almost perfect, that is, it can show if a system is acting chaotically, most of the time, except when they find out to their chagrin, that it doesnt.
Can Michael Mann, or any of the other self proclaimed “experts” show the presence (or not) of chaos in their fabricated “data”? You are as naive and gullible as the “authorities” to whom you appeal.
Carry on. You might try saying something like “Mike Flynn, please stop poisoning the well of a fellow contrarian.”.
You dont have to read anything you dont want to. Cant you help yourself? No self control?
[laughing even louder and longer at fanatical GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring that the Deming Affair does not involve your favorite Mike.
“Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring that the Deming Affair does not involve your favorite Mike.”
Willard, you are babbling incoherently. Please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop gaslighting like Graham D. Warner does.
The problem here is with science journalism.
They often report on what a new paper claims as if it is an established fact.
Just like when a new hominid skull is found, and a new human lineage proposed.
They leave out the context that this is just the latest paper out of many on the topic, and not yet replicated by others who may find somewhat different results.
Thus it is not the last word on this topic.
Ozone hole extended into December this year, could have consequences for Antarctic biota, such as damaging animals’ eyesight: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.17283
elliott…that’s if the theory is correct. I don’t see how O2 atoms in the stratosphere, which has a c0oncentration even less than CO2 in the troposphere, could possibly block dangerous UV radiation.
Ozone is the product of such a collision. How can a measure of ozone levels indicate a danger to the eyesight of animals? Humans can be blinded by EM reflecting off snow or ice, however, I don’t see stories of blind penguins or polar bears.
Things are getting warmer /sarc
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-05-14.gif
Monckton should be back pretty soon.
Please explain why you accompanied a sarcastic remark about warming with a graph that shows warming.
Entropic man
Interestingly, averages, anomalies and especially forecasts are always wrong – unless they show cooling.
And anyway: a global temperature does not exist (hello Essex/McKitrick/Andresen 2007, he he he) – unless it shows cooling as well.
Since Dec 2023?
Bindidon,
Maybe you misunderstand. Hotter thermometers show warming – I am unaware of anyone who claims that an increase in temperature indicates cooling. Some, like Willard, imply that cooling is a result of warming, hence his description of the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
There are different speculations about the reasons for observed increased temperatures. Even you have stated it is nonsensical to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun (increased atmospheric CO2 levels) will result in hotter thermometers.
Dr Spencer, as indicated by his blog posts, seems to be considering other more directly anthropogenic causes of observed warming. All energy production and use is eventually converted to low level (waste) heat. All of it, none is retained, or stored. All the heat escapes to the cold sink of outer space.
This additional man-made heat can be shown to result in hotter thermometers. Nobody can even describe the mythical GHE, but the fact that man-made heat affects thermometers is well known and understood. The instruments themselves have been designed and manufactured to respond to heat.
I simply don’t accept that a mythical effect that nobody can describe makes thermometers hotter.
Mike Flynn, please stop pretending that what you’re trying to talk about is of any relevance whatsoever with what is being discussed.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You obviously didnt understand, so I will repeat it for you .
Bindidon,
Maybe you misunderstand. Hotter thermometers show warming I am unaware of anyone who claims that an increase in temperature indicates cooling. Some, like Willard, imply that cooling is a result of warming, hence his description of the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
There are different speculations about the reasons for observed increased temperatures. Even you have stated it is nonsensical to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun (increased atmospheric CO2 levels) will result in hotter thermometers.
Dr Spencer, as indicated by his blog posts, seems to be considering other more directly anthropogenic causes of observed warming. All energy production and use is eventually converted to low level (waste) heat. All of it, none is retained, or stored. All the heat escapes to the cold sink of outer space.
This additional man-made heat can be shown to result in hotter thermometers. Nobody can even describe the mythical GHE, but the fact that man-made heat affects thermometers is well known and understood. The instruments themselves have been designed and manufactured to respond to heat.
I simply dont accept that a mythical effect that nobody can describe makes thermometers hotter.
Willard, let me know what you are having difficulty understanding, so I can have a good laugh at your ignorance!
Mike Flynn, please stop clogging the blog with monstrous copypastas, for no one is really interested in what a silly sock puppet refuses to believe.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You obviously didnt understand, so I will repeat it for you .
Bindidon,
Maybe you misunderstand. Hotter thermometers show warming I am unaware of anyone who claims that an increase in temperature indicates cooling. Some, like Willard, imply that cooling is a result of warming, hence his description of the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
There are different speculations about the reasons for observed increased temperatures. Even you have stated it is nonsensical to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun (increased atmospheric CO2 levels) will result in hotter thermometers.
Dr Spencer, as indicated by his blog posts, seems to be considering other more directly anthropogenic causes of observed warming. All energy production and use is eventually converted to low level (waste) heat. All of it, none is retained, or stored. All the heat escapes to the cold sink of outer space.
This additional man-made heat can be shown to result in hotter thermometers. Nobody can even describe the mythical GHE, but the fact that man-made heat affects thermometers is well known and understood. The instruments themselves have been designed and manufactured to respond to heat.
I simply dont accept that a mythical effect that nobody can describe makes thermometers hotter.
Willard, let me know what you are having difficulty understanding, so I can have a good laugh at your ignorance!
Or don’t.
Mike Flynn, please stop braying like a mad donkey.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You obviously didnt understand, so I will repeat it for you .
Bindidon,
Maybe you misunderstand. Hotter thermometers show warming I am unaware of anyone who claims that an increase in temperature indicates cooling. Some, like Willard, imply that cooling is a result of warming, hence his description of the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
There are different speculations about the reasons for observed increased temperatures. Even you have stated it is nonsensical to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun (increased atmospheric CO2 levels) will result in hotter thermometers.
Dr Spencer, as indicated by his blog posts, seems to be considering other more directly anthropogenic causes of observed warming. All energy production and use is eventually converted to low level (waste) heat. All of it, none is retained, or stored. All the heat escapes to the cold sink of outer space.
This additional man-made heat can be shown to result in hotter thermometers. Nobody can even describe the mythical GHE, but the fact that man-made heat affects thermometers is well known and understood. The instruments themselves have been designed and manufactured to respond to heat.
I simply don’t accept that a mythical effect that nobody can describe makes thermometers hotter.
Willard, let me know what you are having difficulty understanding, so I can have a good laugh at your ignorance!
Or dont. Up to you.
Mike Flynn, please stop pretending that you are spamming to provide enlightenment.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You obviously didnt understand, so I will repeat it for you .
Bindidon,
Maybe you misunderstand. Hotter thermometers show warming I am unaware of anyone who claims that an increase in temperature indicates cooling. Some, like Willard, imply that cooling is a result of warming, hence his description of the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”.
There are different speculations about the reasons for observed increased temperatures. Even you have stated it is nonsensical to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun (increased atmospheric CO2 levels) will result in hotter thermometers.
Dr Spencer, as indicated by his blog posts, seems to be considering other more directly anthropogenic causes of observed warming. All energy production and use is eventually converted to low level (waste) heat. All of it, none is retained, or stored. All the heat escapes to the cold sink of outer space.
This additional man-made heat can be shown to result in hotter thermometers. Nobody can even describe the mythical GHE, but the fact that man-made heat affects thermometers is well known and understood. The instruments themselves have been designed and manufactured to respond to heat.
I simply dont accept that a mythical effect that nobody can describe makes thermometers hotter.
Willard, let me know what you are having difficulty understanding, so I can have a good laugh at your ignorance!
Or dont. Up to you. You do not have to respond, of course.
Mike Flynn, please stop being such a lazy sociopath.
Willard,
Why do you hate whales?
https://www.northjersey.com/story/opinion/2023/11/07/noaa-action-nj-dead-whales-offshore-wind-turbines/71435692007/
Why is Walter R. Hogle such an opportunistic prick:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-29/why-oil-didnt-save-the-whales-and-why-it-matters
?
“RLH says:
May 15, 2024 at 1:17 PM
Since Dec 2023?”
Never heard about the El Nino phenomenon?
Here are the last two, and the delayed global responses to them.
https://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Nino34+Tglb_2015-2024.png
La Nina is coming, Closer and closer each day.
“the El Nino phenomenon”
where temperatures in the pacific get warmer?
Yeah. It gets warm, peaks, and cools back to normal. You act as if this is novel or surprising.
“La Nina is coming, Closer and closer each day.”
Most likely. And then another El Nino will return. This is what a cyclic phenomena does.
Where I live summer is getting closer each day. But then another winter will return.
And yet, global warming seems to march on as well…
So how many El Nino and La Nina do you expect in a row?
I don’t.
What say you?
I would also note that after 3 La Ninas in a row, bracketed by El Ninos, the last decade has overall been a period of accelerated global warming.
So whatever happens with ENSO doesnt seem to stop GW.
I think you guys are not getting what I am saying. Let me try again. John and Roy are saying that land warms more than the seas and the oceans. I am saying that this is not correct. I am saying that the Nh is warming much more than the Sh. As it happens, there is much more land in the Nh than in the Sh. By averaging they are giving a wrong impression. To avoid confusion, I am asking for Roy and John to rather report on the Nh and the Sh separately instead of on land and ocean/sea separately. Click on my name to read my report.
” I think you guys are not getting what I am saying. ”
“We guys” perfectly get that you are saying… nothing.
No need to click on your name let alone to read your report.
Why are you fixated on global land vs. ocean series?
Yo just need to access
https://tinyurl.com/UAH-LT
to look there at NH and SH
and to compare their average to the global data.
Again: where is your problem?
land warms up faster {and cools down faster}.
Land absorbs less heat than the ocean surface. And Ocean average yearly temperature is much higher than land average temperature.
Or land average temperature is about 10 C, and global average temperature is about 15 C [and most of global surface is obviously ocean]
I am sure Roy understands this and he hasn’t said otherwise.
clint…”Flux is affected by the inverse square law, but photons arent”.
***
Do you watch a lot of Dr. Who, or Star Trek? I think a flux capacitor was referenced in Back To The Future.
All light is EM and subject to the inverse square law. There is no separate phenomenon called a photon. When you talk about photons you are talking about EM, albeit incorrectly.
Thanks for quoting me correctly — “Flux is affected by the inverse square law, but photons aren’t.”
Keep quoting me, rather than making up false accusations.
Why would I quote an immature wannabee like Klinton Klown?
Klinton Klown…”DMT doesnt know half of what I know about you. I know you never completed an engineering program. My guess is you flunked out somewhere about thermodynamics. You have no knowledge of even the basics. You dont understand current flow. You never made it to information theory, where you would have learned about the advances to entropy”.
***
Like most obtusists, Klint Klown is now dealing in speculation re my educational background. Yes, he is guessing, as claimed.
Klint Klown thinks someone who can prove electric current flows negative to positive is wrong by claiming that. Meantime, Klint Klown has confused himself thoroughly on current flow by comparing internal current flow in a battery to external current flow in a circuit.
Electrons in a battery as attracted to the anode. However, in the external circuit, that anode becomes the cathode, that is, the negative terminal. It has to be the negative terminal since negatively charged electrons flow from it through the circuit.
There is a better way to prove it however. A generator or alternator relies on the interaction of electrons in a conductor with a magnetic field. We can predict the direction of current, then measure it with an ammeter, using the left hand rule for generators. Of course, the LHR confirms that electrons flow negative to positive, as does an ammeter.
Mr. Klown is also confused about entropy. The term was defined by Clausius as the sum of infinitesimal heat flows at temperature T. He even put math to it as…S = integral dq/T. There is nothing referenced in the definition of entropy other than heat.
A misunderstanding developed when Clausius offered an extension to his definition to the entire universe. However, he was talking about irreversible reactions which are prevalent in nature and represent a positive entropy where heat is lost. It also means that mass breaks up to release the heat. So, some obtusists associated the disorder with entropy as a measure of disorder.
This is an example of armchair scientists misinter.preting the words of a great scientist.
Quit clogging the blog, gordon.
My explanation of electric current flow was obviously way above your level of understanding. You are obviously unable to back your claims.
dmt…re you link about radiation…
https://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ross/Science/RadTrans.pdf
***
It is largely an anachronism featuring obsolete radiative laws from Planck and Kircheoff. I call them obsolete since nothing was known about radiation and it relationship with electrons in atoms till 1913 when Bohr discovered the relationship.
Planck lamented Bohr’s discovery admitting it would have saved him a lot of grief had he known about electrons. As it stood, Planck hypothesized tiny oscillators to represent individual radiation frequencies and manipulate their relationship to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe implied by the equation E = hf.
E is the radiation intensity and it is claimed by that equation to increase toward infinity as frequency increases. Planck proved it doesn’t but he could not explain his equation. It seems ingenuous for the author at your link to use a fudged equation as the basis of radiation theory.
Kircheoff was much earlier than Planck and he offered the basis of blackbody theory. Again, he based it on pure theory, on a thought experiment.
The main problem with the current GHE and AGW is their dependence on older, immature theories that have since been surpassed. Planck was bypassed by Bohr’s quantum theory, which has a much better explanation for the origins of radiation in electrons. There is nothing in the theories of Planck or Kircheoff to respect the 2nd law of thermodynamics whereas Bohr theory respects the 2nd law.
Sorry Gordon,
Points for at least opening the link, but your desperate attempt to besmirch accepted theory is pretty lame.
The use of the term “anachronism” is particularly ironic.
DMT,
I’m not sure why you provided your link. Maybe you could explain?
You might also explain why the author wrote “Here scattering processes will be ignored”.
Are you trying to imply something?
I could point to one obvious physical impossibility, but you have no doubt already noticed it, and are pretending that the laws of physics can be ignored.
You cannot describe the GHE, so you link to information which is misleading at best, intentionally fraudulent at worst, hoping you will be perceived as wise and knowledgeable, rather than dim and ignorant.
Good luck.
Child,
solving the radiative transfer equation leads to:
https://tinyurl.com/yc648bey
Its in colour. Very straight forward. Even you could begin to appreciate it. But then again, maybe not.
As they say: “you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink”
DMT,
Your coloured cartoon producer seems to believe in “Earth’s Energy Budget” being relevant to something, but doesn’t say what. One might expect a company claiming to be one of the 25 biggest defence contractors to at least try and stand behind a description of a “greenhouse effect”.
But no, just another company spruiking its modelling expertise, and selling its brand of snake oil to the gullible and ignorant. You seem to have been sucked in, but you might be astute enough to keep your money in your pocket.
Do you really believe a GHE exists? What is it supposed to do? Can you describe it?
Oh well, as you say, “it’s in colour”. So is Fantasia.
Planck’s work explains the relationship between frequency and radiation intensity but it is out-dated. It does not explain where the radiation comes from or why it has certain discrete frequencies.
He even admitted his life would have been a lot easier had he known about electrons.
Planck’s work has since been replaced with quantum mechanics and there is no need for anyone to apply Planck’s equations to radiation theory. Unless of course, the author does not understand quantum theory.
Radiation theory was available to Linus Pauling but he went to Europe to learn quantum theory in the 1920s. Then he applied it to molecular structure. He had to modify the equations slightly based on his immense experience with x-ray studies of molecular structure.
Planck’s equations were available to him but he did not bother using them. They did not apply to molecular theory. So, what good are they in science?
Any queries about the radiative transfer equation should be directed to Roy (a genuine scientist).
After all, how do you think the UAH data is derived?
“Plancks work has since been replaced with quantum mechanics and there is no need for anyone to apply Plancks equations to radiation theory. Unless of course, the author does not understand quantum theory.”
Gordon decides to change science and history again.
Planck’s Law has not been replaced by QM, just explained fully by it.
It is still a valid Law of Physics today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
“In physics, Planck’s law (also Planck radiation law[1]) describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T, when there is no net flow of matter or energy between the body and its environment.[2]”
clint…”As I recall, YOU dont even understand the thermodynamic definition of heat.
Quit trying to fake it. Get a life”
***
I have asked you several times to explain the contradiction in your very questionable definition of heat. According to you, heat is simply the process of energy transfer. However, when I have asked you to state what energy is being transferred you have refused to respond, rather you have responded with insults and ad hom.
Until you can describe the energy being transferred scientifically you are being obtuse by claiming I don’t understand thermodyanamics.
Dictionary dot come defines thermodynamics as…”the branch of physical science that deals with the relations between heat and other forms of energy (such as mechanical, electrical, or chemical energy), and, by extension, of the relationships between all forms of energy”.
The word thermos means heat in Greek, but thermodynamics is no longer about heat according to you and other nut jobs.
Dictionary dot com is one of the best definition since other sources like Britannica, NASA, and wiki trip over themselves trying not to call heat the ‘energy’ it is.
We truly live in nutty times when ijits are tripping over themselves trying to redefine science in ever more obtuse and vague manners. Gravity is no longer a force but a space-time anomaly. Complex life originated as the random amalgamation of non-living elements by some sort of unexplained fluke called natural selection. The entire universe suddenly appeared out of nothing in a Big Bang.
Clint is just another follower who is willing to blindly accept any old crap printed in a text book.
[MR. ASSHAT] Puffman is just another follower who is willing to blindly accept any old crap printed in a text book.
[ALSO MR. ASSHAT] Dictionary dot come defines
Willard, please stop trolling.
gordon claims: “According to you, heat is simply the process of energy transfer.”
WRONG!
This is why I don’t waste much time with cultists. (gordon being in a cult-of-one, aka a “crackpot”.). I’ve explained the thermodynamic definition of “heat” to gordon several times. But, he STILL can’t understand it. I can explain, but he can’t understand.
Again, the thermodynamic definition of “heat” — The transfer of energy from “hot” to “cold”. It’s just that simple, yet gordon can’t understand it. He left out the important part, “hot” to “cold”.
If he had ever studied thermodynamics, he would already know it. He would already know that the “energy” mentioned is the “thermal” energy of molecular motion we associate with a simple thermometer reading. Any REAL engineer would already know this and would not have to have it explained to him repeatedly.
gordon has demonstrated he doesn’t understand the relevant science. And, he can’t learn. Like other cultists, he resorts to constant insults and false accusations. Here’s the latest example of gordon’s tactics: “…but thermodynamics is no longer about heat according to you…”. I never said any such thing.
That’s why I usually avoid responding to such nonsense. gordon is not here to learn. He’s only here to clog the blog. If you try to correct him, he just launches off on another long, rambling spew of crap.
Peruvian Current
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/coraltemp_v3.1_swcl_current.png
Earlier, DMT wrote –
“Swenson,
I take it that you are aggrieved at something I said.
Was it the NFI jibe? or maybe the put a sock in it advice ?
or maybe my mentioning of the radiative transfer equation ?
Whatever it was, I am sure it was well deserved.
Cheers,
DMT
p.s. Gavin says hello.”
Strange lad, is DMT. He is obviously delusional, thinking that I would choose to be aggrieved by someone I regard as an idiot. How else should I regard someone who seems to believe in the existence of a GHR, but refuses to describe it, or even to say what they think it might do!
I suppose that I might choose to feel aggrieved, insulted, offended, and so on, but in the case of idiots like DMT, I generally decline.
He is just another fanatical GHE cultist trying (and failing) to be annoying, in my view.
why do people tr0ll? is it psychological?
The simple answer is tr0lls want to be part of something, but they have nothing to offer.
It’s childish behavior. Some people never grow up.
Nice to see Clint being introspective…
Child Nate proves me right, again.
I can take it….
Flynnson
Didn’t you know that you’re one of the few idyots who ALWAYS manage to be annoying 365 days a year on this blog?
Oh… Really not, Flynnson?
*
The very best is that you lack both technical skill and scientific education needed to disprove Dufresne and Treiner:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacques-Treiner/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit/links/555642e008aeaaff3bf5f055/Leffet-de-serre-atmospherique-plus-subtil-quon-ne-le-croit.pdf
*
All you can do is endlessly spew your primitive, boring, styupid ‘No GHE’ drivel.
Bindi, modeling of invalid concepts ain’t science. Just because someone builds a computer model of the bogus GHE does not mean it’s viable. You can build a model showing elephants can fly. But, that does not mean elephants can fly.
Speaking of models, you have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, yet?
The correct model of orbits was discovered over 300 years ago by Kepler and Newton.
If people are still unaware, maybe they need to go look it up!
Child Nate, neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin.
But, you won’t understand it.
Which rather shows that orbit has NOTHING to do with spin, Puffman.
Therefore –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1667412
Clint R
” Child Nate, neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin. ”
Wrt Kepler: correct; wrt Newton: wrong.
*
You always try to deny the fact that Newton was perfectly aware of how Cassini computed the lunar spin period and the inclination of the lunar spin axis wrt the Ecliptic.
Otherwise he never would have written in his Principia that he explained that in 1675 (!) to Mercator, who published in 1676 in his book on Astronomy a hint on Newton’s explanation.
But these are all things you deliberately ignore, don’t understand, misrepresent and above all… deny.
Sorry Bindi, but neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin.
Newton was referring to “with respect to the fixed stars”, which as has been explained to you is NOT spin. Earth both spins and orbits. But the ball-on-a-string and Moon both only orbit.
You won’t understand, as usual….
[PUFFMAN, UNDER HIS 10TH SOCK] neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin.
[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.
Newton was referring to “with respect to the fixed stars” which, as has been explained, is NOT spin. Earth both spins and orbits. But the ball-on-a-string and Moon both only orbit.
The cult won’t understand, as usual….
Clint R
” Newton was referring to ‘with respect to the fixed stars’, which as has been explained to you is NOT spin. ”
*
You didn’t explain anything to me, Clint R, because even today you didn’t understand what I explained to YOU, what you hence endlessly misrepresent and deny.
Though it is very probably useless to repeat what I wrote, I nonetheless do: not for you, but for those who think you would know anything valuable about astronomy and physics.
*
Newton NEVER wrote anything about MOTIONs of celestial bodies ‘with respect to the fixed stars’. NEVER.
He talked only about motion PERIODs ‘with respect to the fixed stars’.
*
Here is Newton’s original text in Latin:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/2wNYAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA51
There you see:
” Maculæ in corpore Solis ad eundem situm in disco Solis redeunt diebus 27 1/2 circiter, respectu Terræ ; ideóque respectu fixarum Sol revolvitur diebus 25 1/2 circiter. ”
Translation:
” The spots on the Sun’s body return to the same position on the Sun’s disc in about 27 1/2 days, with respect to the Earth; and with respect to the fixed stars, the Sun revolves about 25 1/2 days. ”
This is what you endlessly deny, exactly as Flatearthists endlessly deny that Earth is a sphere, and say despite all the evidence:
“Don’t show us pictures taken from ISS, that’s all just fake. ”
*
Like Robertson, the Pseudomod and a few others, you’ll never be able to change your opinion.
Wrong quote, Bindi. Find where he talked about Moon.
Or keep showing your incompetence.
Either is okay with me.
No, Clint R: it was NOT the wrong quote.
Because in order to avoid your intentional misrepresentation, I deliberately chose Newton’s Moon-free sentence showing us (and you too) the difference between
– measuring Sun’s spin with respect to Earth (27 1/2 days)
and
– measuring Sun’s spin with respect to the fixed stars (25 1/2 days).
This difference has NOTHING to do with the Moon: it is valid for the observation of the spin of ANY celestial body from any other, moving celestial body.
*
What you endlessly, intentionally mis’understand’ (and hence always misrepresent) is this:
” Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56′, Mars horis 24. 39′. Venus horis 23. circiter, Terra horis 23. 56′, Sol diebus 25 1/2, et Luna diebus 27. 7 hor. 43′. ”
*
Robertson, the Pseudomod and yourself you all always try to insinuate that Newton meant with ‘revolvitur’ only Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth, the Sun but, by magic, coincidentally, NOT… the Moon.
You finally found the correct quote, Bindi.
Since you are so incompetent, you don’t know that respectu fixarum revolvitur is Latin for “revolves with respect to the stars”.
Adding to your confusion, “revolves” is not the same as “rotates”.
You proved me right, again. So you may now resume your babbling blah-blah.
“Child Nate, neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin.
But, you wont understand it.”
Wrong. Newton’s model of orbit has been tested on numerous planets and moons with spin. And it has proven viable for all of these.
The model finds the orbital path of the body, which is simply the position of the COM of the body vs. time.
This has worked just fine as a ‘viable model of orbit without spin’.
The rotation of a planet is a separate parameter. Together, these perfectly account for the full motion of planets and moons.
And it has been Astronomy’s viable model for 3 centuries.
So you guys are barking into the wind. Have nothing else to offer. And at this point are just tro.lling.
Child Nate, get an adult to explain it to you:
Neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin.
[ME, QUOTING 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.
[PUFFMAN, EMBOLDENING HIS LIE] Neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin.
Still wrong, Clint R.
1. Why did you intentionally omit the time needed for Jupiter to ‘revolve?
*
2. Please compare again:
” Jupiter utique respectu fixarum revolvitur horis 9. 56… ”
and
” … respectu fixarum Sol revolvitur diebus 25 1/2 circiter. ”
What do you mean, Flatearthist?
Do Jupiter orbit in 9.56 hours resp. the Sun in 25.5 days?
Or did Newton mean with ‘revolves’ ‘rotates’ for all celestial bodies – except the Moon?
*
Why don’t you ask your climate denial friends ‘RLH’ and ‘Walter R. Hogle’, Clint R?
Do you think they are incompetent when talking about the Moon?
Silly willy jumps in to help Nate and Bindi be more incompetent.
That’s why this is so much fun.
And as we can see:
” Silly willy jumps in to help Nate and Bindi be more incompetent.
That’s why this is so much fun. ”
Clint R ends the discussion with his usual nonsense.
*
As always: no answer about why Newton’s ‘revolves’ means ‘rotates’ for Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth and the Sun – but means suddenly ‘orbits’ for the Moon.
But Clint R never and never would admit being wrong.
Thanks for quoting me correctly, Bindi: “Silly willy jumps in to help Nate and Bindi be more incompetent.”
The reason I’ve learned to end the discussion with you cult id10ts is because you can’t stand reality. Every time I show you’re wrong, you just come up with another red herring.
If you really want to prove me wrong, provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You can’t do that. You’ve got NOTHING.
> Every time I show youre wrong
You never SHOW anything, Puffman.
Even confronted with a direct quote SHOWING that Newton indeed was talking about spin when mentioning a “revolution about its axis” that is “equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb,” you keep denying and lulzing.
So much fun.
“Child Nate, get an adult to explain it to you:
Neither Kepler nor Newton addressed spin.”
You have been proven wrong.
And you offer nothing to rebut this.
Oh well!
The reason I’ve learned to end the discussion with you cult id10ts is because you can’t stand reality. Every time I show you’re wrong, you just come up with another red herring.
If you really want to prove me wrong, provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”. You can’t do that. You’ve got NOTHING.
COROLLARY 19. Now imagine the globe T, which consists of nonfluid matter, to be so enlarged as to extend out to this ring, and to have a channel to contain water dug out around its whole circumference; and imagine this new globe to revolve uniformly about its axis with the same periodic motion. This water, being alternately accelerated and retarded (as in the previous corollary), will be swifter in the syzygies and slower in the quadratures than the surface of the globe itself, and thus will ebb and flow in the channel just as the sea does. If the attraction of body S is taken away, the waternow revolving about the quiescent center of the globewill acquire no motion of ebb and flow.
Professor Michael Mann elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Society.
Over 90 exceptional researchers from across the world have this year been elected to the Fellowship of the Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of sciences.
Sir Adrian Smith, President of the Royal Society, said:
Hide the decline.
Walter R. Hogle, who for some reason now comments under “wh” at Tony’s, confuses who said that.
I comment using this username.
Tree rings are proxies for temperature, Willard. That was obvious with Briffa’s time series after 1960.
*poor proxies*
Poor proxies indeed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/11/the-us-blows-hot-and-cold/#comment-3692916
Sometimes they lie in a trench coat.
My comments now, dingbat.
This comment is even better:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/11/the-us-blows-hot-and-cold/#comment-3692916
When is Tony’s new temperature dataset indeed.
A pity our own RG had to reprimand that kid under a trench coat…
Fellowship of the Society, the oldest known scientific academy in continuous existence, is a significant honor.
It has been awarded to many eminent scientists throughout history, including Isaac Newton (1672), Benjamin Franklin (1756), Charles Babbage (1816), Michael Faraday (1824), Charles Darwin (1839), Ernest Rutherford (1903), Srinivasa Ramanujan (1918), Albert Einstein (1921), Paul Dirac (1930), Winston Churchill (1941), Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (1944),… Raymond Pierrehumbert (2020)…
Dream on walterrh03.
Like with the Nobel, REAL scientists no longer are wanted.
We gone WOKE.
Here’s a reference from the last person on your list:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1654255?scroll=top&needAccess=true
“𝑇𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑡 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑖𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑏𝑦 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑙 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑏𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑦 𝑡𝑜 𝑧𝑒𝑟𝑜. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑡 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑠𝑜, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑔𝑒𝑡. 𝐿𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑠.”
Written one year before promotion.
Politics, not science. It just confirms that the Royal Society is using its status to weaponize science.
That we need to reach Net Zero unless we get more warming is a simple scientific fact that displeases Walter R. Hogle so much that he’s willing to misrepresent both politics and science to denigrate both.
The science is hardly settled. No science really is. It’s fine if ordinary people think it’s settled, but if used in politics, it crosses the line a little bit. That’s obvious to anyone who’s not an activist, no matter what your perspective on the science is.
Yes, walterrh03, I was being kind when I wrote “dream on.”
It sounds more like a nightmare, one from which you can’t wake up.
All your years of obfuscation and of following cranks who can’t rebut the science of climate change have left you bitter and resentful.
Is this the best version of yourself? How sad!
whatever.
You’re just like Bin-liner when he throws a fit.
> The science is hardly settled.
Step 1 – Pure Denial
The fact that dumping CO2 in the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow warms the Earth and unless and until we stop warming will continue is an established fact that only cranks can currently dispute, be they kids in trench coats.
[Me] Is this the best version of yourself?
[walterrh03] whatever. You’re just like Bin-liner when he throws a fit.
Thought so!
“The fact that dumping CO2 in the atmosphere like theres no tomorrow warms the Earth and unless and until we stop warming will continue is an established fact that only cranks can currently dispute, be they kids in trench coats.”
Keep proving that with your central limit theorem violations along with your models and their ‘unperturbed state’ nonsense.
“𝐀 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬:
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦, 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬. 𝐋𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬. 𝐈𝐭𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐬.
𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.”
How inspiring! We should all be like Ark! As I replied, he’s a great example of that!:
“𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐛𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐟𝐮𝐥.”
Thank you for proving my point, and for hanging on my every word. I’m flattered!
walterrh03:
When will you realize the necessity of staying away from personalities and imaginary grievances and sticking to the Science.
Each day, remind yourself that the best version of yourself is simply this one-not the future you or past you, but the present-day you who is sitting, like many of your fellow humans, in the chiasma of light and shadow, struggle and ease, and suffering and joy.
What is a violation of the central limit theorem?
Asking for a friend.
Hogle
” You’re just like Bin-liner when he throws a fit. ”
Show me doing this, Hogle.
Unlike your hero Eschenbach operating at WUWT all the time with linear fits over station or tide gauge data, I always use polynomials in my charts instead.
And you, Hogle, do exactly the same as Eschenbach or Blindsley H00d wherever he wants to show cooling.
You are not a monkey: you are just an incompetent liar.
walterrh03,
John Tyndall was elected to Royal Society Fellowship on March 6, 1852.
Have you any quotes from his work that you consider worthy of this sub-thread?
This would go a long way in proving me wrong that 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐛𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐟𝐮𝐥.
“What is a violation of the central limit theorem?
Asking for a friend.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1667101
There’s a simple example.
“Have you any quotes from his work that you consider worthy of this sub-thread?”
No, Earth’s satellites at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is emitting more radiation to space than it is taking in. This is despite the claim that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations has expanded the atmospheric window up into colder altitudes, which is supposed to make it harder for radiation to escape.
Binny doesn’t even bother to pay attention to why I used Willis’ article as a source. It was to point out to Nate that anomalies are insufficient statistical descriptors of change.
Regarding Tyndall, I would also add that heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. That’s the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Walter R. Hogle is so oblivious of anything beyond his silly talking points that he does even realize that Willis is not on his side here:
Op. Cit.
Just disregard what I wrote regarding the greenhouse effect and Tyndall. Atmospheric physics are not my strong suit of mine.
Hogle (2)
You’re just like Bin-liner when he throws a fit.
Show me doing this, Hogle.
You are such a coward, insinuating what you can’t prove.
“No, Earth’s satellites at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is emitting more radiation to space than it is taking in.”
I’m 99.9999% certain that you’re wrong about that, but I’ll await your link to such data.
Regarding Tyndall, I think the following quote is perfect for this sub-thread:
I’m not wrong.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/18/when-satellites-refute-the-climate-crisis-narratives-trust-the-science/
Look at Figure 1.
Figure 2 actually.
I called you Bin-liner because putting numbers you don’t understand on a graph is your speciality.
Even Sierra Jim concedes:
Op. cit.
Since the greenhouse effect is meant to explain why the Earth receives more energy than it emits, there’s no there there in that political hit job.
Besides, how could the Earth ever emit more than it receives: is it a heat engine?
Hogle
” I called you Bin-liner because putting numbers you dont understand on a graph is your speciality. ”
Show us where I did it, you cowardly liar.
An increase in outgoing longwave radiation in the CERES data means there is no, or at least no significant, greenhouse effect.
It took him a few months, but our kid under a trench coat comes out of his closet.
We have another crank!
Hogle
Before you boast your utterly superficial nonsense, try to {sarc} scientifically contradict this thread {/sarc}:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/09/a-ceres-of-fortunate-events/
You never would be able to do that.
“No, Earths satellites at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is emitting more radiation to space than it is taking in. ”
Im not aware of this finding. Where is that from, Walter?
Schmidt is arguing that the increase in outgoing long wave radiation is a feedback. He uses declining TSI and the non-correlation with the galactic cosmic rays to back up his claim.
Why can’t it just be getting less cloudy by itself?
nate,
I was referring to the increase in outgoing longwave radiation. Heat is not being trapped.
Energy is more than not being trapped.
It’s being produced by the Earth engine!
Walter R. Hogle is a freaking genius.
The Earth has been emitting more radiation back to space then it was earlier. Not more than it takes in. I didnt word it correctly.
[ONE KID IN A TRENCH COAT] An increase in outgoing longwave radiation in the CERES data means there is no, or at least no significant, greenhouse effect.
[THE SAME KID] Heat is not being trapped.
[PERHAPS ANOTHER KID IN THE SAME COAT] The Earth has been emitting more radiation back to space then it was earlier.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yep, mainstream data indicates that Earth’s surface is emitting more energy into space than it was decades ago.
And, despite continually rising CO2 concentrations, we did not observe the initial reduction that happened before feedbacks.
Quoting me does not help your argument.
Quoting Walter R. Hogle’s backtracking from “Heat is not being trapped” to “well, actually, it might be, but perhaps…less” (while forgetting that he disputes this kind of measurement elsewhere because central limit theorem) is more than enough to support the idea that we’re dealing with a kid in a trench coat of a crank.
We have planet Earth and the Moon orbiting sun.
The Earth receives 28% less solar energy per square meter than the Moon, because of the Earths Albedo higher than that of the Moon (0,306 vs 0,11).
Yet Earth is on average +68Cwarmer than Moon.
The air (O2, N2, Ar) do not absorb infrared; only water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and some other, some other even more minor greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation.
When considering the (solar EM energy)/(surface matter) interaction process, the surfaces of Earth and Moon have the two great differencies between them. Earth rotates much-much faster than Moon, and, also, Earth’s surface is covered with water.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…I think it has more to do with one face of the Moon facing the Sun for 14 days.
Yes, Gordon. Moon’s surface gets much hotter during the lunar day, and it cools much more during the long lunar night.
When hotter, at the day-time, the lunar surface gives off the most of the IR EM outgoing energy. The rest is slowly lost during the long-long lunar night.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Do you realize that your rotation fantasy implies that the albedo of a planet is a function of the rotation rate ?
??
Does it mean that if I rotate very fast I can affect how much sunburn I get on a sunny day?
DMT, your cult claims you’d only receive about 170 W/m². You would be colder than an ice cube.
DMT,
You wrote –
“Does it mean that if I rotate very fast I can affect how much sunburn I get on a sunny day?”
Petty much. If you only expose one side of your body to the Sun, the other side won’t burn at all.
Probably why rotisseries rotate the meat – even the temperature out.
I don’t agree with Christos’ ideas on some things, but your snark is misplaced.
Mike Flynn, please stop ignoring that speeding rotation allows the interior to cook before the exterior burns, a process that has very little to do with the greenhouse effect.
“a process that has very little to do with the greenhouse effect.”
This would be the GHE which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
I agree. Sunburn is due to sunlight, not cooling.
Have you gone completely mad?
Mike Flynn, please stop playing dumb about what every pit master ought to know.
Willard,
“…speeding rotation allows the interior to cook before the exterior burns”
–
Good point! It is the faster rotation makes more solar energy getting absorbed as heat.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
We examine the Earth’s energy balance since 1950, identifying results that can be obtained without using global climate models. Important terms that can be constrained using only measurements and radiative transfer models are ocean heat content, radiative forcing by long-lived trace gases, and radiative forcing from volcanic eruptions. We explicitly consider the emission of energy by a warming Earth by using correlations between surface temperature and satellite radiant flux data and show that this term is already quite significant. About 20% of the integrated positive forcing by greenhouse gases and solar radiation since 1950 has been radiated to space. Only about 10% of the positive forcing (about 1/3 of the net forcing) has gone into heating the Earth, almost all into the oceans. About 20% of the positive forcing has been balanced by volcanic aerosols, and the remaining 50% is mainly attributable to tropospheric aerosols. After accounting for the measured terms, the residual forcing between 1970 and 2000 due to direct and indirect forcing by aerosols as well as semidirect forcing from greenhouse gases and any unknown mechanism can be estimated as −1.1 0.4 W m−2 (1σ). This is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s best estimates but rules out very large negative forcings from aerosol indirect effects. Further, the data imply an increase from the 1950s to the 1980s followed by constant or slightly declining aerosol forcing into the 1990s, consistent with estimates of trends in global sulfate emissions. An apparent increase in residual forcing in the late 1990s is discussed.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012105
Next time a kid in a trench coat tells you that the Earth is emitting more radiation to space than it is taking in, ask that kid since when. If that’s for more than a few days, we would feel it.
Weird Wee Willy,
The Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago.
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in.
The surface cools every night
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in during the day.
Your appeal to authority is, as usual, of the more pointless kind. This is the real world, not WillyWorld, and your authors are obviously living in a world of their own.
You really are an ignorant and gullible wee cultists, aren’t you? Have you improved your description of the GHE from “not cooling, slower cooling”? Maybe you could try claiming that you have never described the GHE at all, and Mike Flynn is right when he says the GHE is a myth!
Carry on being an idiot, Willard. Such behaviour seems to come to you quite naturally.
all you need to read…”…can be estimated as −1.1 0.4 W m−2 (1σ)”.
No measurements, just guesses.
Mike Flynn, please stop making it too easy to ignore your diatribes.
Weird Wee Willy,
The Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago.
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in.
The surface cools every night
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in during the day.
Your appeal to authority is, as usual, of the more pointless kind. This is the real world, not WillyWorld, and your authors are obviously living in a world of their own.
You really are an ignorant and gullible wee cultists, arent you? Have you improved your description of the GHE from not cooling, slower cooling”? Maybe you could try claiming that you have never described the GHE at all, and Mike Flynn is right when he says the GHE is a myth!
Carry on being an idiot , Willard. Such behaviour seems to come to you quite naturally.
Mike Flynn, please make a better effort, as it is still easy to ignore what you’re saying.
Weird Wee Willy,
The Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago.
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in.
The surface cools every night
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in during the day.
Your appeal to authority is, as usual, of the more pointless kind. This is the real world, not WillyWorld, and your authors are obviously living in a world of their own.
You really are an ignorant and gullible wee cultists, arent you? Have you improved your description of the GHE from “not cooling, slower cooling”? Maybe you could try claiming that you have never described the GHE at all, and Mike Flynn is right when he says the GHE is a myth!
Carry on being an idiot , Willard. Such behaviour seems to come to you quite naturally.
Feel free to ignore reality.
Mike Flynn, please stop repeating the same comment over and over again like a silly sociopath.
Weird Wee Willy,
The Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago.
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in.
The surface cools every night
Emitting more radiation to space than it took in during the day.
Your appeal to authority is, as usual, of the more pointless kind. This is the real world, not WillyWorld, and your authors are obviously living in a world of their own.
You really are an ignorant and gullible wee cultists, arent you? Have you improved your description of the GHE from not cooling, slower cooling? Maybe you could try claiming that you have never described the GHE at all, and Mike Flynn is right when he says the GHE is a myth!
Carry on being an idiot , Willard. Such behaviour seems to come to you quite naturally.
Feel free to ignore reality. Reality doesn’t care.
Mike Flynn, please stop making Sky Dragon cranks look bad.
Hogle
” No, Earths satellites at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is emitting more radiation to space than it is taking in. ”
Where did you paste that nonsense from, Simpleton Hogle?
Do you have the slightest idea of what it means?
Look at Figure 2 of my source.
Binny,
It would mean that the Earth is cooling, which of course it is.
You are probably confused about the origin and amount of ephemeral man made heat, and its effect on thermometers.
As you have said, it is just nonsense to say that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations would make thermometers hotter.
You can’t describe the mythical GHE, can you? That’s because it doesn’t exist!
You are fond of quoting dead scientists, so here is a quote for you from Baron Fourier (French, I believe) –
“Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”
You see? Even the French agree with me. Accept reality – no GHE. Not even a little bit.
Mike Flynn, please stop being dumb about Joseph’s origin and look up his Wiki entry.
Willard, you’re an idiot.
Please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, please stop being such a silly sock puppet.
How would sat telemetry know the difference unless it was measuring both simultaneously?
wee willy…”[ME, QUOTING 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”.
***
That is a translation, not a quote. Newton knew the difference between revolving and rotation and he was obviously referencing the Moon’s rotation about the Earth as an external axis, calling it revolution, which it is.
He is referencing the lunar day, which is 14 days long, or so, and that is caused by the Moon’s revolution around the Earth, not by a local rotation on the Moon.
There is another quote from Newton that clarifies this. Newton claimed that…
1)the Moon moves with a linear motion…
2)that linear motion is bent into a curvilinear motion by the Earth’s gravitational field…
3)the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
The translator has obviously misinterpreted the words of Newton. Latin, especially old Latin, is not nearly as prfcise as English and needs to be translated according to the context. The translator has obviously used the context of Cassini, presuming that the Moon rotates on a local axis.
That is obvious since the translation from wee willy does not coincide with the translation from Newton I have offered re linear and curvilinear motion.
If Mr. Asshat was such a latin lover, he’d have quoted the following paragraph a long time ago:
Perhaps he could spare a few bucks from his cigarette budget and buy the authoritative translation by I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, assisted by Julia Budenz or find a way to get the PDF online.
Are you just trying to divert attention away from the mythical GHE?
The mythical GHE which you can’t describe, except to say it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”, which sounds completely ridiculous, doesn’t it?
I suppose you might be stupid enough to claim that cooling (falling temperatures) results in heating. Or you could just scuttle away like a cockroach, refusing to commit yourself to anything at all!
You really are a completely gutless Warmist worm, aren’t you? You don’t need to answer, of course. Others can choose to agree or disagree as they wish – and there’s nothing you can do about it, is there? Actually, there’s nothing you can do about anything at all.
Back to your WillyWorld fantasy, where you are wise and powerful. Much more comfortable than the reality where you are ignored and impotent!
No GHE – not even a little one.
Mike Flynn, please stop distracting yourself with your silly sammich request instead of focusing on the matter that Mr. Asshat himself decided to lie about.
Are you just trying to divert attention away from the mythical GHE?
The mythical GHE which you cant describe, except to say it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”, which sounds completely ridiculous, doesnt it?
I suppose you might be stupid enough to claim that cooling (falling temperatures) results in heating. Or you could just scuttle away like a cockroach, refusing to commit yourself to anything at all!
You really are a completely gutless Warmist worm, arent you? You dont need to answer, of course. Others can choose to agree or disagree as they wish and theres nothing you can do about it, is there? Actually, theres nothing you can do about anything at all.
Back to your WillyWorld fantasy, where you are wise and powerful. Much more comfortable than the reality where you are ignored and impotent!
No GHE not even a little one.
Carry on dreaming.
wee willy aka modicus dickus, spews out more inane pablum…
“The outermost satellite of Saturn seems to revolve about its own axis…”
Seems??? Well, does it or doesn’t it?
Mr. Asshat might have a hard time trying to spin “circa axem […] revolvi.” But then he denies the existence of time. I have faith in his power to say the silliest things with the utmost seriousness.
Are you just trying to divert attention away from the mythical GHE?
The mythical GHE which you cant describe, except to say it results in “not cooling, slower cooling”, which sounds completely ridiculous, doesnt it?
I suppose you might be stupid enough to claim that cooling (falling temperatures) results in heating. Or you could just scuttle away like a cockroach, refusing to commit yourself to anything at all!
You really are a completely gutless Warmist worm, arent you? You dont need to answer, of course. Others can choose to agree or disagree as they wish and theres nothing you can do about it, is there? Actually, theres nothing you can do about anything at all.
Back to your WillyWorld fantasy, where you are wise and powerful. Much more comfortable than the reality where you are ignored and impotent!
No GHE not even a little one.
Carry on dreaming. It suits you.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to coatrack your silly sammich request about the greenhouse effect in an exchange about the Moon.
walter…”Schmidt is arguing that the increase in outgoing long wave radiation is a feedback. He uses declining TSI and the non-correlation with the galactic cosmic rays to back up his claim”.
***
Walter…Schmidt is thoroughly confused about feedback. He has stated that it acts as an amplifier, which is nonsense.
See section titled Gavin Schmidt on positive feedback.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120211192928/http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
binny…”Unlike your hero Eschenbach operating at WUWT all the time with linear fits over station or tide gauge data, I always use polynomials in my charts instead”.
***
A linear function can be a 1st degree polynomial. What’s your point?
Earlier the misguided and thoroughly ignorant Willard wrote –
“Its being produced by the Earth engine!”
Well, yes, it is, actually. Willard’s attempted sarcasm fell flat – yet again.
The Earth is a large blob of stuff hot enough to glow below its exceptionally thin solidified crust. Of course, it must cool, as the heat of the interior is lost to outer space.
Just as a human corpse will continue to lose heat if any part of its interior is hotter than the environment. Surrounding the corpse with insulation won’t heat it up, merely reduce the rate of heat loss. Surrounding the glowing Earth with solidified rock, ocean, and atmosphere won’t heat it up, merely reduce the rate at which the interior cools.
Suitable application of Newton’s Law of Cooling can approximate the time of the human’s demise. It’s a bit more complicated for the Earth, which is why Lord Kelvin’s estimate of the age of the Earth was incorrect.
Once again, no role for a mythical GHE. As even Willard admits, what occurs is “slower cooling”.
Spot on, but Willard is too thick to accept what it means. No GHE.
Mike Flynn, please stop trying to deny the greenhouse effect while describing it approvingly.
You aren’t the smartest cultist ever conceived, are you?
Earlier the misguided and thoroughly ignorant Willard wrote
“It’s being produced by the Earth engine!”
Well, yes, it is, actually. Willards attempted sarcasm fell flat yet again.
The Earth is a large blob of stuff hot enough to glow below its exceptionally thin solidified crust. Of course, it must cool, as the heat of the interior is lost to outer space.
Just as a human corpse will continue to lose heat if any part of its interior is hotter than the environment. Surrounding the corpse with insulation wont heat it up, merely reduce the rate of heat loss. Surrounding the glowing Earth with solidified rock, ocean, and atmosphere wont heat it up, merely reduce the rate at which the interior cools.
Suitable application of Newtons Law of Cooling can approximate the time of the humans demise. Its a bit more complicated for the Earth, which is why Lord Kelvins estimate of the age of the Earth was incorrect.
Once again, no role for a mythical GHE. As even Willard admits, what occurs is “slower cooling”.
Spot on, but Willard is too thick to accept what it means. No GHE.
Mike Flynn, please stop copy-pasting your irrelevant gotchas.
You arent the smartest cultist ever conceived, are you?
Earlier the misguided and thoroughly ignorant Willard wrote
“Its being produced by the Earth engine!”
Well, yes, it is, actually. Willards attempted sarcasm fell flat yet again.
The Earth is a large blob of stuff hot enough to glow below its exceptionally thin solidified crust. Of course, it must cool, as the heat of the interior is lost to outer space.
Just as a human corpse will continue to lose heat if any part of its interior is hotter than the environment. Surrounding the corpse with insulation wont heat it up, merely reduce the rate of heat loss. Surrounding the glowing Earth with solidified rock, ocean, and atmosphere wont heat it up, merely reduce the rate at which the interior cools.
Suitable application of Newtons Law of Cooling can approximate the time of the humans demise. Its a bit more complicated for the Earth, which is why Lord Kelvins estimate of the age of the Earth was incorrect.
Once again, no role for a mythical GHE. As even Willard admits, what occurs is slower cooling.
Spot on, but Willard is too thick to accept what it means. No GHE.
You wrote “please stop copy-pasting”. Why? What mental deficit leads you to think I would act on your request? How about I just ignore you, and do as I wish?
Mike Flynn, please stop spamming the last place cranks under sock puppets are allowed to say stuff.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, please stop spamming the last place cranks under sock puppets are allowed to say stuff.”
Oh dear, why do you think I should take any notice of you? Have you perhaps some power to affect me? I don’t think so, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
[laughing at deranged GHE cultist]
Mike Flynn, please stop acting like an impotent sociopath.