UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2024: +1.05 deg. C

May 2nd, 2024 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The 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):

YEARMOGLOBENHEM.SHEM.TROPICUSA48ARCTICAUST
2023Jan-0.04+0.05-0.13-0.38+0.12-0.12-0.50
2023Feb+0.09+0.17+0.00-0.10+0.68-0.24-0.11
2023Mar+0.20+0.24+0.17-0.13-1.43+0.17+0.40
2023Apr+0.18+0.11+0.26-0.03-0.37+0.53+0.21
2023May+0.37+0.30+0.44+0.40+0.57+0.66-0.09
2023June+0.38+0.47+0.29+0.55-0.35+0.45+0.07
2023July+0.64+0.73+0.56+0.88+0.53+0.91+1.44
2023Aug+0.70+0.88+0.51+0.86+0.94+1.54+1.25
2023Sep+0.90+0.94+0.86+0.93+0.40+1.13+1.17
2023Oct+0.93+1.02+0.83+1.00+0.99+0.92+0.63
2023Nov+0.91+1.01+0.82+1.03+0.65+1.16+0.42
2023Dec+0.83+0.93+0.73+1.08+1.26+0.26+0.85
2024Jan+0.86+1.06+0.66+1.27-0.05+0.40+1.18
2024Feb+0.93+1.03+0.83+1.24+1.36+0.88+1.07
2024Mar+0.95+1.02+0.88+1.34+0.23+1.10+1.29
2024Apr+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


4,698 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2024: +1.05 deg. C”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. TheFinalNail says:

    Yet another notch upwards on the y-axis.

    • bdgwx says:

      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.

      • TheFinalNail says:

        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.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Planetary alignment …. HAHAHAHA … we have an astrologer on board!

      • Bill hunter says:

        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’.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        Bill still fails to recognize the fact that gravity of the planets pulling on earth aint Earth’s temperature!

      • Bill hunter says:

        Nope but the earth’s distance from the sun determines that among other things.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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?

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Nate says:

        “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…

      • E. Swanson says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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?

      • bill hunter says:

        Seem about time for Nate’s sock puppet to show up. Wait for it. . .

      • Nate says:

        “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?

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Step 3 – Saying Stuff

      • Nate says:

        “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!

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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?

      • Nate says:

        “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

      • Nate says:

        Then we have Bill predictably man-splaining all about a topic he obviously knows little about.

      • bill hunter says:

        Is Nate actually now denying that the fast carbon cycle sequestration of carbon has not increased? Stay tuned for his answer.

      • Nate says:

        Bill, the master-baiter, says come with me down my rabbit-hole of total confusion.

        No thanks.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        Any discussion with Bill leads to “dire implications”

      • Stephen P Anderson says:

        Nate,

        What are you talking about? There are no other terms for conservation of mass. IPCC and every atmospheric physics text uses the same terms. You are throwing out crap and propaganda.

      • Willard says:

        Troglodyte, please stop being so slow.

      • Nate says:

        You had plenty of time to look at the paper, Stephen. Did you even look?

        See eq. 1 in the paper. Berrys term is the third term on the right.

    • bdgwx says:

      And for those curious about what the anomaly is on the old 1981-2010 baseline it is +1.17 C.

    • Mark B says:

      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.

      • bdgwx says:

        I’m prepared to be wrong, but I do think 1.05 C will be the peak of this ENSO cycle.

      • TheFinalNail says:

        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.

    • John Tillman says:

      Highest Arctic sea ice extent yesterday on May 1 in ten years.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • John Tillman says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        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).

      • John Tillman says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • John Tillman says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        > Nothing nutty about cycles.

        “Cycle nuts” designate contrarians who cling to cycles even when being shown a clear trend from 1979 to now.

      • John Tillman says:

        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.

      • God says:

        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.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        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.

      • John Tillman says:

        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.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        You certainly use artistic licence when reporting on your “science”.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        More important than sea ice, the land ice sheets on Greenland and W. Antarctica have continued to decline in mass.

        https://tinyurl.com/cn7mvke5

      • Nate says:

        Greenland ice mass measured by satellite

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMnFbIDIEGs

      • Nate says:

        ‘Kohn’ Typo, should be John

      • Willard says:

        > 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?

      • Jack Dale says:

        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

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner returns to his old ways.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Doxer, please stop trolling.

    • TEWS_Pilot says:

      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?

  2. Entropic man says:

    Ye Gods!

  3. Bellman says:

    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.

    • Bellman says:

      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

      • Bellman says:

        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.

    • Bellman says:

      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.

      • Nate says:

        Makes it clear how much earlier was the rise in this cycle.

      • LT3 says:

        Makes it very difficult to implicate that warming to just El-Nino, HT water vapor is likely to be the early forcing.

  4. Entropic man says:

    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?

    • TheFinalNail says:

      “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.

  5. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    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

    • Charles Best says:

      CO2 levels are completely stable over the last 7 months.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        completely stable” ?
        https://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/co2_400/mlo_six_months.pdf

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        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.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        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.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        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.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        Got it. Thanks

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        AI, CO2 follows temperature. Always has as the evidence shows.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        We were just talking about members of the Right who attack Jews, and who should show up on cue!

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        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.

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Perhaps, but pirates obviously cause global cooling.

        Arrr!

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        BGDWX,

        We know temperature doesn’t and never has followed CO2 because we’re still here.

      • bdgwx says:

        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?

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Step 1 and Step 2 – Sammich Request presupposing Pure Denial

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

    • 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.

      Also likely is the remaining thermal energy from the HTE.

      • Norman says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        Norman, you’re just another child of the cult. If you want to learn some science, grow up. Stop with the cult tactics.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Dixon says:

        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.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Summarising cLInt’s response:

        Satellites do not measure surface temperatures.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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!

      • Nate says:

        ” 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.

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        Dixon,

        Yes, another step change, like the several before implies non- systematic cause.

      • Willard says:

        According to troglodytes, shrooms have an effect all the way down or they do not cause anything.

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • bdgwx says:

        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).

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        Bill,

        Murray Salby (may he RIP) disagrees. The equation that BGDWX offers above does not describe what we are seeing.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        > But the real question is

        Our Inspecteur Clouseau always haz ze question.

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Step 3 – Saying Stuff

      • Craig T says:

        “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.

      • Craig T says:

        “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?

      • bdgwx says:

        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?

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        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.

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        In other words, the sine wave is systematic but the step-change isn’t.

      • Willard says:

        > mankind hasnt been able to create any sudden massive change

        Step 1 – Pure Denial

      • Bill hunter says:

        LMAO! Willard is so deep in the tank he can’t see any light.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Gill returns to

        Step 3 – Saying Stuff

        RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROFL

      • bdgwx says:

        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

      • bdgwx says:

        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”.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        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.

      • Stephen P. Anderson says:

        The only thing we’re seeing advance linearly is CO2 as an integral of temperature.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “riding a trend is what the non-scientific prognosticator”

        Riiight, there has been no science to explain the trend, discussed here at this blog!

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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?

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Gill confuses the absence of evidence in one study for an evidence of absence.

        LMAO

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Bill hunter says:

        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 says:

        “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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • bill hunter says:

        the carbon cycle doesn’t explain how co2 warms the surface.

      • nate says:

        And thus, Bill, you are off topic for this thread.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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!

      • bill hunter says:

        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

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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?

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • bill hunter says:

        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.

  6. skeptikal says:

    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.

    • Paul says:

      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.

      • Bob Close says:

        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.

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        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!

    • DMT says:

      “Something is seriously wrong here.”

      Are you seriously going to repeat this mindless refrain every month from now on?

    • Arkady Ivanovich says:

      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

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      Arkady, please stop trolling.

    • barry says:

      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.

  7. DMT says:

    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?

    • Ken says:

      There is frost this AM.

      There are no frogs active, never mind boiling in a beaker.

    • Swenson says:

      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.

    • lewis guignard says:

      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.

  8. Bob Weber says:

    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.

    • bdgwx says:

      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?

      • Ken says:

        RF of +0.04 Wm-2 causing 0.55C of warming makes more sense than any amount of CO2 doing anything similar.

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        bdgwx, both the “energy imbalance” and “sensitivity” values are nonsense. It’s all based on “curve fitting”. That ain’t science.

    • Nate says:

      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.

    • Bob Weber says:

      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.

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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?

    • Craig T says:

      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

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

    • John Collis says:

      Is there data that shows solar irradiance at different frequencies across the whole EM spectrum from gamma rays down to radio waves?

  9. bdgwx says:

    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.

    • TheFinalNail says:

      “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.

      • Richard Barraclough says:

        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.

  10. bdgwx says:

    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.

  11. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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/

  12. Mark Shapiro says:

    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

  13. Bad Andrew says:

    “Time to start regurgitating all your worn out arguments.”

    Here’s mine: Time for an audit.

    Somebody’s device is broke.

    Andrew

    • Nate says:

      Ha! When everybody in the world’s devices seem to have broke, in unison, that might be time for rethinking your theory.

    • gbaikie says:

      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

    • Bad Andrew says:

      “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

      • Willard says:

        Why is it that the only red flags Andrew cares about correspond to those we can read daily in Troglodytes’ outlets?

      • Bad Andrew says:

        Willard,

        Away with you, ankle-biter! 😉

        Andrew

      • bdgwx says:

        Bad Andrew, do you know of any two global average temperature dataset that have produced the exact same value for each and every month?

      • Bad Andrew says:

        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

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • Bad Andrew says:

        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

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        How do you feel about pro-life freaks?

    • Alex A says:

      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.

      • Bad Andrew says:

        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

      • bdgwx says:

        We won’t get the April UAH grid for a few days, but the March grid is not inconsistent with your observations.

      • Bellman says:

        “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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • barry says:

        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….

  14. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Concordia Station Temperaturehttps://i.ibb.co/dGXkg9h/Screenshot-2024-05-02-18-10-55.png

  15. gbaikie says:

    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.

    • gbaikie says:

      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

    • TechnoCaveman says:

      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.

      • gbaikie says:

        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

    • gbaikie says:

      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.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

    • gbaikie says:

      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.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

      • gbaikie says:

        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

      • gbaikie says:

        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

  16. gbaikie says:

    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/

  17. David says:

    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.

  18. Rob Mitchell says:

    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?

    • Clint R says:

      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.

    • Tim S says:

      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.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

  19. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Cooling of the eastern North Pacific, very favorable for fishing and California sea lion.
    https://i.ibb.co/wN58VF0/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif

  20. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Winter is returning to Russia with snow and cold weather.
    https://i.ibb.co/R78snBn/ventusky-rain-3h-20240511t0300-64n43e.jpg

  21. Willard says:

    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

    • Swenson says:

      “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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Have you lost your quote marks because you do not know anything else than to use an iPad?

        Silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “Have you lost your quote marks because you do not know anything else than to use an iPad?”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Why do you act as if you were Graham D. Warner’s attack dog desguised under a sock puppet?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn,”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Why do you act as if you were Graham D. Warners attack dog desguised under a sock puppet?

        Cheers.

      • Nate says:

        “Obvious gotcha, irrelevant truisms, empty pontification.”

        Then rinse and repeat.

        Compelling arguments…not so much.

      • Swenson says:

        “Why do you act as if you were Graham D. Warners attack dog desguised under a sock puppet?”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Silly sock puppet.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  22. Gordon Robertson says:

    Time to check out the satellite telemetry, it is obviously not in step with what we are experiencing here on the surface.

    • DMT says:

      ha ha ha ha ha!

    • Eben says:

      When you see a big sudden step in data it is not real

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • Bad Andrew says:

        “This looks real.”

        As real as colored squiggly lines ever did.

        Andrew

      • DMT says:

        Spoken like the proverbial frog.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Dave G says:

        I think you ought to ask Dr. Roy if he thinks it’s real, Eben. After all, it’s his dataset.

      • Swenson says:

        “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]

      • Willard says:

        Step 3 – Saying Stuff

      • Swenson says:

        “Step 3 Saying Stuff”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” 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.

  23. Willard says:

    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.

    • Swenson says:

      “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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Your incredulity is duly noted.

        Only can do something about it.

        What do you intend to do, silly sock puppet?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        I will take your copypasta as a yes.

        Cheers, silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn, silly sock puppet,

        I will take your copypasta as a yes.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Here you are, in my thread, almost denying being Mike Flynn.

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        “Here you are, in my thread, almost denying being Mike Flynn.”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You are a silly sock puppet.

        Cheers.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      You forgot about the snowfall in Afghanistan, which froze the flowers of fruit trees and is having critical economic consequences for many families.

  24. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    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.”

    • Swenson says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        “Do you mind looking like a silly sock puppet?”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        As Feynman once said –

        > How much do you value life? Sixty-four.

        What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?

      • Swenson says:

        “What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Why do you insist in invoking Graham D. Warner’s spirit?

        Never mind answering, silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn,”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

  25. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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

  26. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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

  27. Antonin Qwerty says:

    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.

    • Swenson says:

      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.

      • Bindidon says:

        Flynsson

        ” Sounds like a mental affliction to me. ”

        Says this blog’s mentally most deranged boy.

        ” Bindidon, please stop tr0lling. “

      • Swenson says:

        “Flynsson”

        Bindidon, please stop tro‌lling.

  28. mark wapples says:

    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.

    • Bellman says:

      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

      • RLH says:

        What is your reason for using tMean?

      • Bindidon says:

        Blindsley H00d

        What is your reason for asking?

      • RLH says:

        Explanation.

      • Bellman says:

        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.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” 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

      • Bindidon says:

        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.

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • Bindidon says:

        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).

      • bdg says:

        Yes. Good catch. 9504.

      • RLH says:

        Why tMean rather than tMedian? You do know statistics?

      • Willard says:

        More than you ever will, Richard.

      • RLH says:

        So with all your knowledge of statistics tell me why tMean over tMedian then.

      • Willard says:

        I was talking about bdgwx, Richard, whom is a real formal guy.

        By contrast to you, who’s a coder who pretends being one.

      • RLH says:

        So I will wait for bdgwx statistical reason for using tMean over tMedian then.

      • Willard says:

        You could also commit to a specific claim and make an argument for it, Richard.

      • RLH says:

        tMedian is better than tMean for things such as average temperatures.

      • RLH says:

        “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.

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • RLH says:

        Are you claiming that tMean is not skewed?

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        bdgwx, please stop trolling.

      • RLH says:

        Skewed has a very specific meaning in statistics. Look it up.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “Neither is better in all scenarios.”

        Not sure why RLH doesnt get this, and keeps missing the point.

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” 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

      • bdgwx says:

        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.

      • Bindidon says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Shut up.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner is tilting once again.

      • Bindidon says:

        “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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Shut up, Bindidon.

      • Nate says:

        Im shocked, shocked, to find that tro.lling is going on in here!

        And by the tr.oll police no less!

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        A desperate, obsessive stalker appears.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        And, since 4:54 pm, he is no more.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Another obsessed fan appears.

  29. Antonin Qwerty says:

    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.

    • Swenson says:

      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]

      • Willard says:

        > Maybe you could demonstrate

        Step 2 – Sammich Request

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        You’re looking very wethered, kid.

      • Swenson says:

        “Step 2 Sammich Request”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Swenson says:

        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 ]

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        I see you’re on the search for a buck, doe.

      • Swenson says:

        “I see youre on the search for a buck, doe.”

        Arkady, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        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

      • Swenson says:

        “ranked by Mike Flynn / Swenson)”

        Arkady, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Yes Arkady, please leave Flynn alone so he can focus on my posts.

      • Swenson says:

        “Yes Arkady, please leave Flynn alone so he can focus on my posts.”

        Antonin, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Merely helping you out Mikey.

        Good list BTW. Well done on leaving out the chucker.

      • Swenson says:

        “Merely helping you out Mikey.”

        Antonin, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        “Your replies are looking very ovine, Mikey.”

        Antonin, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        What sentence could just as easily be spoken at a sheep husbandry lecture as at an IT lecture?

        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .

        “You” can never get enough RAM.

      • Swenson says:

        Antonin, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

      • Antonio Qwerty says:

        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.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        (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.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        40th should clearly be 20th

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Antonio Qwerty says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Antonin, please stop trolling.

  30. Craig T says:

    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/

    • bdgwx says:

      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.

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

    • Clint R says:

      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.

      • Craig T says:

        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

      • Craig T says:

        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

      • Clint R says:

        Wrong again, Craig T. Real objects do NOT violate 1LoT. You and your cult are the ones that violate the laws of thermo.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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

      • Nate says:

        I’ll repeat the question, Christos.

        You really think jackets dont keep you warm on cloudy days, or at night?

    • Bindidon says:

      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).

      • Craig T says:

        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.

      • Bindidon says:

        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?

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • Bindidon says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Norman says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        “No logic can get though that closed mind of yours.”

        Norman, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Bindidon says:

        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.

      • Bindidon says:

        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

      • Clint R says:

        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….

      • Craig T says:

        “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.

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Craig T says:

        “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

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        That video has NOTHING to do with the issue, Craig. I predicted you STILL wont understand.

        Thanks for proving me right.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        Silly willy contributes his childishness to Nate’s brain-dead, making it even funnier.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Craig T says:

        “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.”

      • Clint R says:

        Wrong again, Craig.

        Keep proving me right. I can take it.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You wrote –

        > I wrote

        Thank you for repeating an irrelevant gotcha.

        It can be ignored again.

        Silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

    • Swenson says:

      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]

      • Craig T says:

        “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.)

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You prove minds again –

        > Perhaps you think

        Perhaps you think nobody knows you are a silly sock puppet?

        Cheers.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner is having a little fun.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Doxer, please stop trolling.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      test

  31. 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

  32. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Norman says:

      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!

      • Swenson says:

        “Why do you continue to pretend you have any type of science background. Your posts show you have none!”

        Norman, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Norman says:

        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?

      • Norman says:

        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.

      • Norman says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        > No GHE

        Step 1 – Pure Denial

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You hypothesize –

        > the SB law calculates

        No, silly sock puppet, it does not!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Arkady Ivanovich says:

      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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.”

      • Craig T says:

        “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.

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Silly sock puppet –

        https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

  33. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • gbaikie says:

      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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • gbaikie says:

        –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.

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • dmt says:

        Cookers, “You can run, but you cant hide!”

        +1.05 degrees!

        ALLOW ME TO REPEAT

        PLUS 1.05 DEGREES!

      • Swenson says:

        dmt,

        Look down between your feet! -1200 degrees! Not molten!

        ALLOW ME TO REPEAT

        MINUS 1200 DEGREES!

        I win.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        What do you gain exactly with your irrelevant talking point?

        Attention?

        Nobody really bites at it anymore.

        Aw diddums.

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Craig T says:

        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

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Craig T says:

        “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.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Craig T says:

        “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.”

      • Swenson says:

        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?

    • Willard says:

      > Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both who work and teach in the field of thermodynamics, have falsified the popular GHE theor

      Step 3 – Saying Stuff

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        That was you saying something true:

        Mike Flynn says:
        April 13, 2015 at 12:24 AM

        [Some irrelevant stuff you were saying.]

        Shine the Sun on the Earth, the temperature rises, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere. Turn the Sun off, (night), and the temperature falls, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere.

        Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me. Tell me, has the Earth warmed since its creation, because it has cooled really, really, slowly?

        [Some other stuff.]

        Mike Flynn.

        https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • gbaikie says:

        –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.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You deflect –

        > You quote Mike Flynn

        I am quoting *you*, Mike Flynn.

        Silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You play dumb –

        > Do you have a point

        Yes, I do, silly sock puppet.

        You are Mike Flynn.

        Cheers.

      • Mike Fl‌ynn says:

        “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.

      • Swenson says:

        “You are Mike Flynn.”

        In you the obsession strong is.

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        For once you make an effort, silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

  34. gbaikie says:

    — 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/

  35. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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

  36. Tim S says:

    May the 4th be with you!

  37. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    There is now a rapid increase in sea ice extent in the south.
    https://i.ibb.co/z5B0Qfw/S-iqr-timeseries.png

  38. Arkady Ivanovich says:

    Listen up “skeptics.”

    To me flat earthers are the first symptom of a much bigger problem. They show us what happens when people realize they can’t understand modern science, don’t trust scientists, and therefore throw out even the most basic scientific knowledge on the rationale of skepticism.

    They’re actually throwing out evidence that they could test themselves if they weren’t so bad at science.

    But the underlying problem is much deeper because in most of modern science the average person can’t test evidence for themselves.

    https://youtu.be/TW6hgOc3wuI

    • gbaikie says:

      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.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        who want the govt to make the world flatter.

        If you believe that the Earth is flat, you also have to believe in a global conspiracy that’s hiding the truth for no particular reason.

        For starters you must believe that most of physics is wrong, and physicists are just making things up.

        We’re all part of a big conspiracy; geophysicists they’re also in on it; astrophysicists are Liars.

        Everyone who’s ever been involved in launching a rocket into space or putting a satellite into orbit is part of that conspiracy too.

        gbaikie, the first step is admitting, and then it’s one day at a time.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        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.

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        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.

      • gbaikie says:

        Earth is currently in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.

    • Clint R says:

      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.

    • Swenson says:

      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?

  39. 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

    • Bindidon says:

      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

      • Bindidon says:

        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).

      • Swenson says:

        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.

    • Craig T says:

      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

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Thanks, Craig:

        In summary, it should be highlighted that the Mayer’s method of averages became the first statistical method for solving the regression problem, although this solution was not based on the minimization of a suitable criterion as mentioned above. The Mayer’s innovative solution to reduce the influence of metrological uncertainties on the estimated parameters should be thus appreciated and can be thus used in modern practical approaches without a significant loss of reliability of the results. Mayer’s method can be thus very powerful and practically suitable, especially in cases when we do not require the knowledge of the accuracy of the estimated parameters.

        Op. Cit.

        Have you ever seen Moon Dragon cranks provide a numerical model for their silliness?

        Me neither.

      • Swenson says:

        “Have you ever seen Moon Dragon cranks provide a numerical model for their silliness?”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Craig T says:

        I’ve missed you too, DREMT

      • Craig T says:

        “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.

      • Craig T says:

        “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.)

      • Craig T says:

        “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

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        > I asked for any MORE pearls of wisdom

        Step 2 – Sammich Request

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        “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.

      • Craig T says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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!

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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”.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner cannot let go of his phone.

      • Nate says:

        Appropriately, non-evidence is presented as evidence to support the non-spinners non-sense.

      • Craig T says:

        “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?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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?

      • Craig T says:

        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

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Craig T says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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!

      • Nate says:

        “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!

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Bindidon says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        I assume Kreg’s workin’ on that viable physical model of "orbit without spin".

      • Craig T says:

        “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.

      • Craig T says:

        “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

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Craig T says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Still nothing.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Again: still nothing.

      • bobdroege says:

        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?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        bobdroege, please stop trolling.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner PSTers and seeks to irritate.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  40. gbaikie says:

    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.

  41. Gordon Robertson says:

    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?

  42. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Craig T says:

      I’m sure Newton didn’t chase skirts. 😉

      • Swenson says:

        “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]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        We actually do –

        Newton was not just disinterested in sex but actively appalled by the idea, accusing one former friend of “endeavouring to embroil me with woemen” [sic]. He was described by one peer as having a constitutional indifference to the sex in general. He was known for being particularly vicious and vindictive towards people he fell out with or considered his rivals.

        He also had a lengthy feud with a dildo salesman.

        https://getmaude.com/blogs/themaudern/isaac-newton-on-sex

        Silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        We have evidence that your inference was silly, silly sock puppet.

        Isaac is most probly asexual.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You inexorable –

        > What inference was that

        That not chasing the opposite sex implies homosexuality, silly sock puppet.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        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)?

      • Willard says:

        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.

    • DMT says:

      ” … 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.

    • Arkady Ivanovich says:

      Newton’s Principia for the Common Reader by Subrahmanijan Chandrasekhar. Oxford University Press Inc. 1995.

      Representing a decade’s work from one of the world’s most distinguished physicists, this major publication is, as far as is known, the first comprehensive analysis of Newton’s Principia without recourse to secondary sources.

      Chandrasekhar analyses some 150 propositions which form a direct chain leading to Newton’s formulation of his universal law of gravitation. In each case, Newton’s proofs are arranged in a linear sequence of equations and arguments, avoiding the need to unravel the necessarily convoluted style of Newton’s connected prose.

      In almost every case, a modern version of the proofs is given to bring into sharp focus the beauty, clarity, and breathtaking economy of Newton’s methods. This book will stimulate great interest and debate among the scientific community, illuminating the brilliance of Newton’s work under the steady gaze of Chandrasekhar’s rare perception.

      Spoiler alert: not written in lame man’s language.

  43. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Craig T says:

      “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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Craig T says:

        “Molecules dont bump into each other.”

        Then can you explain Brownian motion?

      • Craig T says:

        “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

      • Swenson says:

        Craig T,

        “Then can you explain Brownian motion?”

        Of course I can. Why do you ask? Don’t you know?

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Craig T says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Craig T says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn just woke up, Craig.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        “Mike Flynn just woke up, Craig.”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        And now Mike Flynn is asleep, Craig.

        Our silliest sock puppet lives down under.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, Antonin, please stop trolling.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner should have waited a little longer to PSTer.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  44. Willard says:

    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/

    • Swenson says:

      “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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You proclaim –

        > Ah, I see.

        No, silly sock puppet.

        You don’t.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You profess –

        > Just speculation and guesswork

        Science is mostly conjectures and refutations.

        Silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You mention information.

        What are you braying about?

        You’re just a silly sock puppet.

        You don’t deal in information.

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You mention information again.

        Why are you then copy-pasting a comment that is void of it?

        Silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner tries to PSTer me in my own thread.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Doxer, please stop trolling.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Stalker, please stop trolling.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner still tries to PSTer me in my own thread!

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Shhhh.

  45. Mike Jonas says:

    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?

  46. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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

  47. 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

    • Swenson says:

      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

      • Craig T says:

        “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

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        And I started my own research. It took me a lot of time reading everything I could find in Internet.

      • Swenson says:

        Arkady, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      “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

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        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).

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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!

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        “That is full-blown denial at its worst.”

        Please stop tro‌lling.

  48. 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

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      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.

    • Clint R says:

      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

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        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

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        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

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        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

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        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

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        CV

        What is the purpose of merely quoting what I said and saying nothing else?

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        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!

      • Arkady Ivanovich says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, Arkady, please stop trolling.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner PSTers again.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, please stop trolling.

  49. Craig T says:

    “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.”

    • Craig T says:

      NASA’s Robert Frost answering the question “Does the ISS rotate during orbit to keep the same attitude with respect to the ground below?”

    • Clint R says:

      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….

      • Craig T says:

        “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.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

      • Craig T says:

        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.

      • gbaikie says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • gbaikie says:

        “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%.

      • gbaikie says:

        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%.

      • Clint R says:

        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.”

      • Craig T says:

        “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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        > Dr Spencer has not described the GHE

        Step 1 – Pure Denial

    • Craig T says:

      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.

      • Craig T says:

        “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.

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        TYPO alert!

        Should be “Craig”.

        Sorry.

      • Swenson says:

        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]

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        "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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Nate says:

        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”

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        …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.

      • Willard says:

        Exactly, Nate.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Exactly, DREMT.

      • bobdroege says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        "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.

      • Willard says:

        It’s as if Graham D. Warner had to pretend not to read Nate to continue with his gaslighting.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        It’s as if I live rent free in their heads.

      • Nate says:

        DREMT, like Clint, has learned that saying ridiculous things attracts attention in the form of ridicule.

        And they seem to crave it.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        A short comment from Nate is usually just an insult or some kind of personal remark.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Same with Little Willy.

      • bobdroege says:

        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

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “an insult or some kind of personal remark.”

        Not unlike this:

        “Its as if I live rent free in their heads.”

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        He’s still responding!

      • Nate says:

        “I’m shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on in here.”
        -Captain Renault in Casablanca

      • bobdroege says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        > 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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • bobdroege says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • bobdroege says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        "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.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        A long comment, so probably chock full of misrepresentations.

      • Nate says:

        “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’.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Meanwhile, Graham D. Warner just necromanced a dozen of subthreads to PSTer.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        …and rightly so.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Nate is very predictable.

      • bobdroege says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        No, bob. A physical model. Not just an animated moon.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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."

      • Willard says:

        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!

      • bobdroege says:

        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.

      • bobdroege says:

        DREMPTY,

        Also, do you realize that you just pitched your precious transmographer in the toilet?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        bob comes up with another model that is objectively spinning.

        No, nothing I have said contradicts what the transmographer shows.

      • bobdroege says:

        DREMPTY,

        You just rejected non physical models.

        “No, bob. A physical model. Not just an animated moon.”

        Isn’t the transmographer an animated model?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        bob can never follow an argument. The “Non-Spinners” physical model of “orbit without spin” is the ball on a string. Not the transmographer.

      • bobdroege says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        “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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Can’t help but notice that Nate is still responding. Why are these people so obsessed with me?

      • Willard says:

        Exactly, Nate.

        Too bad Graham D. Warner does “not” read your comments.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        See what I mean!? Obsessed, I tell you.

      • Nate says:

        “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?

      • Nate says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        I think it’s all those arguments they’ve lost. That’s why I get under their skin so much.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        See what I mean?

  50. gbaikie says:

    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.

  51. walterrh03 says:

    Cinco De Mayo for me:

    https://i.postimg.cc/MG4N1B7G/IMG-5357.jpg

    Hope everyone is enjoying their Sunday.

  52. Willard says:

    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

    • Swenson says:

      Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” 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’.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Alternatively, Mr. Asshat could consider the wet bulb.

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        Alternatively, Mike Flynn, you could eat your own sammich:

        https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich

        Silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You are right:

        https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich

        This leads to your dribblings.

        Cheers, silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich

        Cheers.

        Silly.

        Sock.

        Puppet.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Silly sock puppet,

        Here is you:

        https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich

        Cheers.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      heck…we get 43C temps here in Canada. Lytton, BC averages at least 43C in summer.

    • walterrh03 says:

      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.

  53. Bindidon says:

    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.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

    • Craig T says:

      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

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        > Lets slow down and see i

        As predicted, Puffman-the-Riddler has returned!

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Cassini actually wanted to calculate Easter.

        Is there anything Mr. Asshat can get right?

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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?

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Have you lost your footing again or are you simply trying to deflect?

        Silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?

      • Swenson says:

        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.

    • Bindidon says:

      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.

  54. Swenson says:

    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”.

    • walterrh03 says:

      Yea, he’s a monkey.

      • Swenson says:

        You don’t mean to offend any monkeys by association, I’m sure.

      • walterrh03 says:

        not at all. I don’t think alarmists even know what monkeys are.

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        The only “monkeys” here are those that resort to these sorts of attacks.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You play dumb once again:

        Yes, you are JAQing off.

        Silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson, or Mikey, or generic sock.

        This is what is called in Climateball as an own goal.

        Go on, keep scoring for the opposition.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Why are you poisoning the well of a fellow crank?

        Silly sock puppet!

      • bobdroege says:

        Swenson scores another own goal.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.

  55. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Craig T says:

      “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

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • bobdroege says:

        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.

    • Craig T says:

      “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.”

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Craig T says:

        “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

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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]

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Craig T says:

        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

      • bobdroege says:

        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.

      • bobdroege says:

        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?

    • bobdroege says:

      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.

    • Craig T says:

      “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.

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      bobdroege, Kreg, please stop trolling.

  56. Nate says:

    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.

    • Swenson says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You admit –

        > I guess

        Just speculation and guesswork, silly sock puppet?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        “You admit ”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • walterrh03 says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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?

      • Swenson says:

        Woebegone Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “Step 2 Sammich Request”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You play dumb again.

        Do continue, that’s what you do best.

        Silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Woebegone Wee Willy,

        You wrote

        “Step 2 Sammich Request”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You wrote –

        > You wrote.

        Yes, I did.

        Silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Woebegone Wee Willy,

        You wrote

        “Step 2 Sammich Request”

        Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        Oooooooh! A link!

        What does it say?

        Nate, please stop tro‌lling.

      • Nate says:

        Your mother said she is very disappointed in you.

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Nate says:

        “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..

  57. Swenson says:

    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.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      … as Flynnster plays the girly-man by whining for a page …

      • Swenson says:

        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.

  58. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Antonin Qwerty says:

      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.

  59. Willard says:

    SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE

    Scientists observe a single quantum vibration under ordinary conditions

    https://news.mit.edu/2019/single-quantum-vibration-normal-1007

    Vintage 2019.

    • Swenson says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn puts his own description of the greenhouse effect into my mouth –

        https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich

        Silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        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!

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn plays dumb over the “SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE” title.

        He might be a silly sock puppet, but he’s our silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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!

      • Willard says:

        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!

      • gbaikie says:

        — 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.

  60. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    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

    • Ken says:

      Earth magnetic field is getting weaker too. That means higher energy particles like UVB penetrate deeper into the atmosphere.

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        At least you are not as ignorant as Ken. That’s something. Not much, but something.

  61. Entropic man says:

    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.

    • RLH says:

      What has politics to do with climate?

      • Willard says:

        Troglodytes made AGW part of their political identity.

      • Craig T says:

        Five years ago I couldn’t imagine politics having anything to do with vaccines.

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • Nate says:

        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

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Graham D. Warner always ends up gaslighting.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Not in the least.

    • Clint R says:

      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?

      • Craig T says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        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….

      • RLH says:

        “If you walk around a tree, counterclockwise” do I turn always so that my left shoulder points inwards.

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry RLH, but knowing how to walk is part of the test.

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        …about an axis in the tree, not on your own internal axis.

      • Clint R says:

        Ent answers “c”.

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • bobdroege says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        "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.

      • Nate says:

        Planets and moons don’t walk or fly like a plane. Do try to come up with better analogies.

      • Craig T says:

        “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.

      • RLH says:

        So you agree with me that the turning is part of the walking?

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        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….

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Clint R is right though…this is all a bit of a distraction from a simple question, with a simple answer…

      • RLH says:

        So Clint R agrees with me that the turning on your axis is part of the walking?

      • Clint R says:

        Sorry RLH, but you’re WRONG again.

        Responsible adults would understand.

        (Please don’t play in the street, or run with scissors.)

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        > It cannot possibly be doing both.

        Step 1 – Pure Denial

      • Swenson says:

        “Step 1 Pure Denial”

        Willard, you’re an idio‌t.

        Please stop tro‌lling.

      • Swenson says:

        “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!

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn keeps being a silly sock puppet:

        https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich

    • Craig T says:

      Clint, you and DREMT keep bringing up passenger jets. Why?

      • Craig T says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        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….

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        Silly willy is throwing another tantrum.

        He just can’t stand reality.

      • Craig T says:

        “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

      • Clint R says:

        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?

      • Entropic man says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Clint R says:

        Ent, if you consider reality to be an insult, that’s your problem.

        Button it up, son. You’ve got NOTHING.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Craig T says:

        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.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        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.

      • Craig T says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • Craig T says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        “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.

      • Craig T says:

        “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.

      • Clint R says:

        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 T says:

        “Craig is becoming my favorite brain-dead cult id10t.”

        Don’t tell Swenson. He’ll be crushed.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        “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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        A stalker appears.

      • Nate says:

        Tro.ll Handbook:

        When your argument is shredded and you have no science answers, blame the messenger!

      • bobdroege says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Sigh.

      • bobdroege says:

        DREMPTY has no response other than to sigh, when the facts are against him.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        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.

      • bobdroege says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        bob says he understands rotation, then demonstrates that he doesn’t. Oh well, not my problem. Talking to bob is a waste of time.

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        If you say so, Little Willy.

      • bobdroege says:

        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.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        OK, bob.

      • bobdroege says:

        DREMPTY,

        So what’s your definition of rotation about an internal axis?

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Sure, bob. Good one.

      • bobdroege says:

        DREMPTY,

        So you don’t have a definition of axial rotation?

        Try Mahdavi fig, 2b

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        If you say so, bob.

      • bobdroege says:

        DREMPTY,

        It’ a no brainer to say the Moon can exhibit axial rotation without defining axial rotation.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        Sure, sure.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        Mr. Asshat confuses fact and belief.

        What else is new?

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        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!

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        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!

      • Swenson says:

        “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]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You assert –

        > You initially claimed

        I was not here in 2015:

        https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich

        Silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        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]

      • Willard says:

        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!

    • Swenson says:

      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.

  62. 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

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      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.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Gordo, the self proclaimed engineer, wrote:

        christosthe spinners are mistaking a 360 degree change in orientation of the Moons near face, wrt the stars, for a rotation about a local axis.

        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.

      • Craig T says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • Craig T says:

        I did the math – the Earth travels 4.4 thousand miles per degree of rotation.

      • E. Swanson says:

        Grammie clone regurgitates the Cult’s mantra:

        Moon is not spinning, so zero spin angular momentum.

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        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.

      • Clint R says:

        “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.

      • Willard says:

        > 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.

      • Craig T says:

        “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.

      • Craig T says:

        The Moon has to have done a 180 degree rotation by the halfway point and a 360 by the time it reaches the end.

      • Clint R says:

        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!)

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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]

      • Willard says:

        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.

      • Swenson says:

        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]

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn, please stop delaying the moment you’ll produce *one* intelligent response.

    • Bluetoon says:

      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.

  63. gbaikie says:

    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}.

  64. gbaikie says:

    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.

  65. walterrh03 says:

    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.”

  66. Gordon Robertson says:

    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.

    • Norman says:

      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)

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        I assume you already got served –

        https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich

        By your very sorry self.

        Cheers, silly sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        I did not link to *someone* saying &c.

        I linked to you.

        Silly sock puppet!

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Craig T says:

        “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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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 says:

        “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.

      • Swenson says:

        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.

  67. David says:

    For all of the believers in the moon not rotating provide just one website that agrees with that.

  68. Bluetoon says:

    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

  69. Willard says:

    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

    • Swenson says:

      Willard, please stop tro‌lling.

    • walterrh03 says:

      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.

      • Willard says:

        Walter R. Hogle returns to

        Step 2 – Saying Stuff

      • Swenson says:

        “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.

      • walterrh03 says:

        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.

      • walterrh03 says:

        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.

      • Willard says:

        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!

      • Swenson says:

        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?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You say –

        > It doesn’t look like

        Have you looked, silly sock puppet?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        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?

  70. gbaikie says:

    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.

  71. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Equatorial Upper-Ocean Heat Anomalieshttps://i.ibb.co/qN4TjjT/Screenshot-2024-05-07-07-57-36.png