Home/BlogI’ve researched different options regarding commenting with the main intent of reducing bad behavior in the comments section. As many of you know, over the years I’ve banning certain words (which can be circumvented anyway, and inadvertently can lead to acceptable words being banned.)
I’ve also banned certain persons by their IP address, e-mail address, and screen name.
Again, these blocks can all be gotten around, which is why any new commenter must have their first comment be approved by me. This system works pretty well, especially for the few people who cannot hide their identity (think D-C) since their message is always the same.
The biggest problem I’m currently having is that some people who comment here repeatedly belittle others. This does not foster a healthy exchange of ideas, and no one wants to wade through an endless stream of insulting comments.
So, what I am leaning toward is banning of certain individuals who make a habit of insulting others. I will be the sole arbiter of who has crossed the threshold of bad behavior, what constitutes an insult (for a couple of you, it’s a subtle art form), and they will no longer be allowed to post using the same user name, email address, or IP address. This also means that others will not be able to mention them by user name after they are gone, but you all know how to get around that, anyway.
Of course, I cannot prevent those I’ve banned from reappearing with a new user name, email address, and IP address if they are clever enough. But if they resume their bad behavior, they will just be banned all over again. But if they turn over a new leaf… welcome back.
I will not give out warnings regarding bad behavior. Certain people will just disappear from the comments section. Think of me as Big Brother from 1984. Don’t bother protesting, because for each person who is banned I will have a list of quotes from their comments in reserve as evidence.
I will try to remember to post some brief commenting rules at the end of each of my new blog posts so that everyone is forewarned.
Almost everyone who posts here has reason to be worried, myself included.
But it was hilarious on the other recent thread to see the worst offender here, clearly anticipating that he would be the first target, declaring himself to be the number one victim of attacks. Does he have any clue how transparent he is?
“Almost everyone who posts here has reason to be worried, myself included.”
I’m not worried at all. Okay, being on dynamic IP does help allay my fears… but the main reason I’m not worried is that I don’t make a habit of insulting others.
It will be interesting to see who does end up getting banned.
Gordon is the number one victim of attacks. He gets more abuse than anyone I’ve ever seen, on any blog, ever.
Graham D. Warner is free to believe any falsity he pleases.
At least in this case it helps him cope with the loss of another fellow.
I was just stating a fact.
Telling a poster he has the science wrong is neither an attack nor troxxing.
Like that’s all he gets. You really have no idea, bob.
DREMT,
I was talking about your behavior.
You are nowhere near as polite as you think you are.
Bob,
I don’t see how anyone can tell anyone they have the science wrong when it comes to GHE. There’s so much nebulousness and questions in the theory that no one can be axiomatic about it.
Which was my main point here.
Many of us need to pull our head in, myself included. But some have convinced themselves they are not a problem.
It’s hard to tell whether they have a perception problem, or whether they really have no idea what appropriate behaviour is.
One thing I find very distasteful is this continual addressing of people in the third person. If it is designed specifically to irk people then it is wrong, whether or not it comes across as a direct attack. (That applies also to posting the same comment ad infinitum.)
Until certain people acknowledge they have an issue which needs addressing, there is no hope that they will fix it. A rule of thumb: if you find yourself (in a science debate, not a conversation like this about behaviour) talking about the person instead of the science, you need to pull your head in.
Perhaps people should be striving for the moral high ground instead of satisfying themselves that “they did it first”. Because no one knows who “did it first”.
Stephen,
“I dont see how anyone can tell anyone they have the science wrong when it comes to GHE. Theres so much nebulousness and questions in the theory that no one can be axiomatic about it.”
The core description of the GHE is fairly simple science.
If one is claiming it doesn’t exist, then they do have the science wrong.
And yes, there are a lot of misconceptions out there.
Like the claim it violates the second law of thermodynamics.
> Which was my main point here.
That point has not been identified. What follows has nothing to do with the exchange. Hogging the mic hinders communication as well as anything else.
And worse is that you vent about speaking about the third person without even addressing me, AQ. This is not your class, and nobody is your high school student here.
Bob,
And yet the core description seems like something is missing. When you don’t include conduction and convection in your description, and ignore 99.5% of the atmosphere, there needs to be an explanation why it is trivial. You get a guy like VC who uses the same emissivity, and the same albedo, but also another correction based on planet spin, and he comes up with a model that seems reasonable and doesn’t include GHE. I do want to play Devil’s Advocate with him. He talks about 0.4% of the thin atmosphere but most of the water vapor is low altitude and the same with CO2 so it is concentrated down near the surface. So, most of the GHE is occurring within the first three miles of the surface, probably the first mile of the surface. So, GH gas is not effectively 0.4%, it is a higher value. I think that throws a little of a monkey wrench into Vournas’ premise.
Willard
My point was clearly identified.
And why would I address you when I wasn’t specifically talking to you? Do you expect me to address the same post to the half dozen or more people that applies to?
It is speaking IN the third person, not “about”. The fact that you don’t know the difference suggests you don’t know what I was referring to. It seems you believe it refers to talking ABOUT someone you are not addressing.
Stephen,
Conduction and convection are part of the model of the atmosphere that includes the GHE.
The whole atmosphere is what determines the amount of the GHE.
Have you gotten around to reading Manabe and Strickler?
I haven’t but I have read other sources and have done spectral analysis and know how to recognize a Carbon Oxygen double.
In college when I listened to a lot of vinyl, I wondered what the deal was with discwasher fluid, why it was so expensive and why it was labeled as a hazardous substance. Put some in the IR spectral analyzer and found out it was deionized water just like it looked like.
VC is working backwards, that’s not how to apply the scientific method, reverse engineering maybe, and conjuring up constants to fit the curve.
> why would I address you when I wasnt specifically talking to you?
Because I’m the one who does exactly what you complain about right above your comment, dammit! Graham D. Warner lost his privilege to be addressed directly a long time ago. Whether how I refer to him displeases you or not is the lesser of my concerns.
When you say “which was my main point here,” to which remarkes is it connected? Nothing clearly identifiable in the sub-thread in which you start your comment. Just imagine if you read my comment without knowing I’m responding to your “why would I address you” etc.
Quoting to what you respond would help. Readers can more easily what prompts your comment, even if your comment gets lost in the threading. It would also help with the following point:
This is a thread about Roy’s policies. Roy is basically asking us to play the ball, not the man. I get that the “no insult” policy worries you: it’s really hard to tackle a ball without its carrier to feel something. But if you simply respond to what people say, and refer to its commenter as little as possible, you should be fine.
Now, if only Little Willy could follow his own advice…instead of obsessively stalking and relentlessly attacking a small, select group of people that he’s deliberately targeted.
> could follow his own advice
Graham D. Warner shows a perfect example of the ambiguity I was talking about.
What advice?
That ambiguity allows him to “attack” by rehearsing his own grievance in another exchange in which it is of little relevance.
We wish him luck finding an insult I made on this page. To help him out, an insult looks like this:
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] you’re just trying to kiss up to Dr Spencer in the hopes of not getting banned.
Willard
I just said you are one of AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN who do that.
Try not to make it all about yourself.
Your entire complaint is predicated on the false belief that I was talking directly and solely to you.
However in retrospect in is interesting to see someone who has made more than 1300 comments in a month referring to “hogging the MIC” based on a mere handful of comments.
Your final paragraph was clearly a soliloquy to yourself, so there is no need to touch that.
It is clear that your promise to Mr Spencer was no more than lip service, and made only under the threat of action, not out of a sense of what is right.
> Your entire complaint is predicated on the false belief that I was talking directly and solely to you.
That’s incorrect, AQ. It’s predicated on the fact that your rant was made after a comment I made, that it targeted me, and that in it you were not ADDRESSING me.
Not unlike what you were complaining about. Very much so not unlike that it’d be interesting to know why it wouldn’t irk you if I ranted right next to you about unnamed “commentators” who still act as if this thread was meant for them to air out their petty grievances.
I’d rather tell you directly that this isn’t a thread about what irks you. It is about Roy’s policy.
Is that clearer this time?
Willard
My comment had NOTHING to do with yours. It was a direct reply to bobdroege’s comment, and someone else managed to slip in a comment before I hit reply.
You continue to believe the world revolves around you.
My comment was about you, Clint, Gordon, RLH, and everyone else who addresses people in the third person.
That’s right … this is a thread about his policy, and that is what I am talking about.
> My comment had NOTHING to do with yours.
It had SOMETHING to do with me, along “AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN” other commenters. And how you talked about me without addressing me does NOT cohere with the grievance being expressed in that comment. A grievance that has NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER regarding Roy’s policy.
Speaking of which, if you could refrain from probing my mind, that’d be great.
This advice:
“if you simply respond to what people say, and refer to its commenter as little as possible, you should be fine.”
That is what I was referring to. You don’t do that yourself, you see. In fact, you have directly targeted certain individuals from the very start of your commenting here, and you have hounded them with attacks on their character, relentlessly. You labelled them as part of a dark triad, associating them with negative personality traits, and have belittled them every step of the way.
“You labelled them as part of a dark triad, associating them with negative personality traits, and have belittled them every step of the way.”
Swen*son, Clint R, and Gordon: would you really believe using them as examples actually helps your argument? These individuals certainly do not demonstrate good blog etiquette themselves.
Nothing justifies his behaviour, John.
Are you a personal friend of his, by any chance? You seem awfully invested in defending him.
No, I’m not necessarily defending that. AQ’s points are valid. Its rarely just one or two people at fault; it’s usually many individuals involved.
Willard
“And how you talked about me without addressing me does NOT cohere with the grievance being expressed in that comment.”
You continue to show that you have no clue as to what it means to address someone IN the third person.
AQ continues to fail to show how his concern is related to the no-insult policy established by Roy. And Graham D. Warner fails once again to make his tu quoque valid, if only because he keeps butchering how time works.
“…if only because he keeps butchering how time works“
What on Earth is that supposed to mean?
> supposed to mean?
“You don’t do that yourself” is in the present tense.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner can point in this thread where I fail my own advice, recall that it was made to appease someone worried about his own behavior, and tell readers how literally he interprets “as much as possible”?
Actually, I consider your use of my real name an insult. Regardless, are you trying to suggest that because you believe you have refrained from insults for one article we’re all supposed to be impressed and forget what you were like for the last three years!? You are certainly in no position to dish out advice.
Graham D. Warner’s actual nickname *is* insulting. It shows disrespect not just toward Roy, but toward every single commenter here. And coupled with the constant PSTering using a banned word, it reinforces a pattern of abuse.
If you say so, Little Willy. Others may have a sense of humour. Or, be able to understand the points I’ve been making.
Willard
Because as you did just then, you and others do it with the sole purpose of pissing people off.
> with the sole purpose
AQ just can’t resist probing mind again.
Whatever reason he does that, I’d say it’s not very polite.
Not even Wisconsin polite, in fact.
Again you do it for the sole purpose of pissing someone off. There is no other reason for doing it, because you ONLY do it with people you are having a disagreement with.
At least you appear to have finally figured out what referring to someone in the third person means. It took you a while.
“if you simply respond to what people say, and refer to its commenter as little as possible, you should be fine.”
And let’s be very clear. PSTing as it has been practiced, is responding not to what people say at all, but to the commenter.
It’s intent is only to irritate opponents.
AQ finally admits that his special pleading was not that subtle after all.
You are certainly running through your entire bag of tr0ll1ng tricks. Why don’t you admit you have no intention of living up to your “promise” to Mr Spencer.
AQ uses once again a word that has been moderated in response to a comment that mirrors his, except perhaps for the fact that mine is valid (he was indeed special pleading), whereas his is unsound (I knew all along what he was talking about).
Perhaps it’s too hard for him to adapt to Roy’s new policies. Or perhaps it’s just the sign of old age. So many theories.
What a revolting individual you are. You are even worse than Clint and Flynn. What are you doing on this side of the climate debate. Go and make friends with Postma.
AQ might be revolted by a non-insult, at least according to his own characterization. Could be a lack of education in the humanities. Or perhaps because he believes he’s paid to talk down to kids every day. Who knows?
Yep, you really are our Postma. I’ll let you have the last revolting word that you so desperately crave. A craving that led to 1300 posts in a month (and that was only on the monthly climate report thread). How anyone could have the time or inclination to spend all day every day here is beyond me, while also finding time to “research” everyone’s personal details. My students don’t need talking down to. Not one goes remotely close to stooping to your level. It is easy to infer your personal school experience from that comment.
AQ could recognize that to probe minds like he did was uncool, and contrary to Roy’s new policy. He does that a lot. Since he believes he’s a Good Guy, he should be fine. Godspeed on that.
AQ could also own the fact that to talk about me without addressing me or even mentioning me was not very cool either. It also runs against his own do-not-irk-me policy. Since this post isn’t about AQ’s policies by Roy’s, we can let it slide.
AQ could also acknowledge that his analysis of what is or isn’t an insult was rather self-serving. There are too many examples of phrases that can both act as compliments or insults to bother refuting it. Questions of a guy-who-shan’t-be-named simply do not carry the same connotations as his worries about his own mother.
Truthfulness has nothing to do with true politeness anyway.
But at the very least AQ should stop acting like we’re on speaking terms.
I’d be grateful for that.
Just completed a small round of PSTing in the comments under this article:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2024-0-85-deg-c/
I’ve started quoting the offending words or sentences to explain the PST, and think I can defend each PST as being justified. So, unless Dr Spencer voices his express desire for a cessation of PSTing, I will continue to do so using these stricter rules.
Thank you, and good day.
Astute might forget the original reason Graham D. Warner offered for his PSTering:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1592467
That reason coheres with what he calls the “irony” behind his actual nickname and his earlier “just joking” defense.
Click on Little Willy’s link, and scroll down to the comment with this timestamp:
January 12, 2024 at 11:10 AM
No need to repeat myself, it’s all explained there.
> Astute might forget
Astute readers, that is.
This comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1592526
OK Mr Spencer – I’ve been trying to work out who “D-C” is, but I am clueless. It this that guy you banned years ago where you had to shut down commenting until he went away? What was his name?
I’ll let others clue you in. I’ve posted on his behavior, as has Anthony Watts.
Insulting the author of an article on the internet is an American internet tradition.
Vicious arguments within the comment thread must be allowed to continue until one person compares the other person to H i t l e r. Only then should the Moderator step in. That is Al Gore’s Internet Rule 3b. He invented the internet.
Moderation is a tough job. The Moderator must earn respect to prevent nasty comments in the first place. One way is to arbitrarily redirect every 20th comment to the internet on the planet Uranus. Show the commenters who is boss.
There should also be one day a month called Climate Theory Day where anyone can state their personal climate change theory with no reply comments allowed.
Freedom of the Pres Day..
On that day I might present my Blubber Theory: It’s not getting much warmer, but adults are getting fatter, so it feels a lot warmer to them than when they were young and slim.
D o u g
C o t t o n
D-C is Douglas Cotton who is a long running “there is no greenhouse effect” pest who wears out his time in many blogs he crashes to push the same “there is no greenhouse effect” message no matter what the topic is and tries to circumvent his much banning’s with variations of his name and IP’s he uses.
Because he has a massive ego and a burning Narcissism complex, he is easy to spot IF he was able to get through the first post moderation approval barrier as he speaks the same way no matter what his screen name and IP’s he is using he simply can’t hide his identity when he writes in the distinct manner that screams, I am Douglas Cotton.
He is still around in some places, but blog owners are finally realizing that his being stopped at the first post approval requirement by denying him to get in through the door is the best way to shut him down.
I figured out who D-C was. I see he hasn’t made a climate-related post on any of his four Facebook accounts for 6 years. What is worrying is that he has Australian politicians from the Left in his friends list. I suspect they haven’t investigated what he is all about.
Anyway, based on his stated university history, he would be about 80-81 years old. So perhaps he has entered the world of dementia.
It is also clear that he is no expert in the field, following the 1000frolly (Robert Holmes) path to self-expertise (and then to oblivion).
> he would be about 80-81 years old. So perhaps he has entered the world of dementia.
See, AQ?
*That* is an insult.
Which person on this thread have I insulted?
You DO understand it is all about keeping communication cordial between people ON THIS SITE, right?
And no it wasn’t an insult anyway. There was no judgement there, any more than if I’d said perhaps he is dead. Just surmisal about his fate.
AQ does not always speculate about dementia, but when he does he can’t be insulting anyone for he’s not judging anyone and the demented person isn’t here anyway.
Two forms of special pleading for the price of one!
My mother is having memory issues. I fear she may be getting dementia.
Did I just insult her?
.
.
.
Salvatore has disappeared from here and has not posted on Facebook for a few years. I fear he may have passed on.
Did I just insult him?
.
.
.
Joe Blow has no idea about climate. It is probably caused by dementia.
THAT is an insult.
.
.
.
Suggesting that someone might have a disease over which they have no control is not an insult. Using it to falsely explain their behaviour is. Pretty simple really.
Has AQ ever talked about his mother publicly? Has she done something that irks AQ and got her banned from most Climateball blogs? Do people say of her things like that she “has a massive ego and a burning Narcissism complex”?
Is AQ worried that his mother have Left Aussie politicians in her FB friends’ list? Is D* related to AQ in any way? Is AQ a doctor or a psychologist? Would AQ explain his mother’s weird beliefs by “she is dead”?
AQ’s suspicion that D* has dementia might be more loaded than he presumes. As far as I can tell, his Very Neutral stance only differs from Puffman’s constant appeal to reality from an aesthetic standpoint. In both cases we have two Climateball players who refuse to own what they do with their words by hiding behind implausible deniability.
Could I have the English version please Willard.
We can safely predict that AQ will soon pretend he’s not being insulting right now.
Speech acts are not mere strings of words.
"We can safely predict that AQ will soon pretend he’s not being insulting right now"
Little Willy, please stop t-word-ing.
This will be a difficult task but I, for one, welcome it. I’ve stopped reading comments due to the vigor of insults. Thanks Dr. Spencer.
Thank you.
Best comment so far. Thanks Roy for trying to make this more like Rank Exploits and less like Tony Heller’s.
It’d be great to have a list of the words that are banned.
Figuring out which word is banned is a problem, particularly as the word list isn’t simply the profane. Editing a comment in the hope of finding what is preventing it from posting is frustrating.
I think he expects people to cope by simply not pushing the boundaries. The only reason for wanting to know what you can’t say is so that you know how bad you can get without transgressing.
“I think he expects people to cope by simply not pushing the boundaries.”
“The word list isnt simply the profane.”
Its r.e.f.r.i.g.e.r.a.t.i.o.n and other words that should be innocuous.
How can you have a discussion about CO2 without using absorp.tion?
Not having to relitigate well-established properties was perhaps the point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Note the date.
Here are the main two reasons GHE theory is still around:
1. Nobody has come up with a better theory. I think it is due to the complexity of the planet’s thermodynamic processes. Maybe the theory is correct but like Dr. Spencer says climate sensitivity might be much lower than those IPCC guys calculate. Maybe it is even much lower than Dr. Spencer thinks. If climate sensitivity is less than 1, let’s move on to another problem. If it is 2.2 like Happer estimates, let’s move on.
2. The left is using it as a way to control the economy and be the utopian masterminds that they think they are. Many of the posters here fit that category.
Point 1 alone is correct.
Point 2 is not a statement where correctness applies, in the two senses of the term.
If you avoid insults there are only a few words left that are unfortunately banned because of the names of previous commenters now banned, and a small number of others that are mystifying.
Any word or letter string with a C after a D will prevent the post going through. This can catch people out with weblinks.
absorp.tion
is another.
Variants of r.e.f.r.i.g.e.r.a.t.i.o.n can prevent posts
There are a couple of others, and sometimes you just can’t tell what it is.
Avoid insults and the above and the vast majority of your posts should go through.
refrigeration
itself certainly isn’t the problem.
All words containing the letter sequence ‘r p t’ for example are a problem, exactly as are those containing ‘d c’, what is especially disturbing when posting links containing such sequences.
A response page telling us why a post is not permitted would be just as good, and could be quite simple. Just highlighting the blocked word would do it.
“Ive researched different options regarding commenting with the main intent of reducing bad behavior in the comments section.”
Does this mean the daily commenting limit of 10 is gone?
Never noticed such a limit. If it’s real, it must be new.
barry
Yo just need to look at the previous thread:
” UPDATE: Im going to start limiting comments to 10 per person per day. “
I can’t implement a daily comment limit without requiring registration from everyone, which is non-trivial.
FWIW, I will try to abide by it.
It’s worthless, because you’re the worst t-word on the blog, and you’re just trying to kiss up to Dr Spencer in the hopes of not getting banned.
Graham D. Warner is not insulting at all, and he is merely defending himself here.
“I cant implement a daily comment limit without requiring registration” – true, but you can implement a daily comment limit for an assumed identity. Computationally intensive, should be only run once an hour or a day. The culprit would be banned for the next hour/day.
Simpler still, a 3-hour comment limit for everyone.
"Graham D. Warner is not insulting at all, and he is merely defending himself here."
No, I was attacking you – and rightly so.
Yeah, right.
Endless attempts to throw people’s words back in their face when it doesn’t even apply could be considered as “negative noise with no useful input”.
“Endless attempts to throw peoples words back in their face when it doesnt even apply could be considered as ‘negative noise with no useful input’ ”
Thanks for pointing out the issue with Clint’s commenting strategy. He even throws other people’s words in your face and asserts they must be yours too because you both accept climate change. And he does it ALL THE TIME.
Yeah, that’s not Clint R’s commenting strategy at all.
Dr. Spencer,
Thank you for trying to improve the website. If the response above is is any indication, the sophomoric silliness will continue. How is it that such well-educated people behave like spoiled, entitled children when online? Why can’t we have civil discussions?
T
What is this “response above”? There is nothing remotely uncivil in this thread.
Roy Spencer
The problem is not only that some posters use to discredit and even insult others, what results in the insulted persons (my self included of course) beginning to counter-insult.
The problem is also that some posters (always the same guys) insult also scientists and science in general, e.g. by insulting great, historical astronomers as ‘astrologers’ or, even worse, as ‘cheating S O B’ and the like.
This is simply disgusting, and IMHO shouldn’t happen on a science site.
Yep, well I’ve been the victim of a sustained and utterly relentless character assassination attempt over months (years, in fact) by multiple commenters, and have even been stalked to the extent of people posting my real name on here and looking up roughly where I live from my IP address when posting on a different blog. I’ve even had someone suggesting I should kill myself.
All because I have different views than these people on a few trivial subjects, and can express them clearly.
The Moon is important- the constant interest, proves it.
It is well known that the people who complain loudest about being bullied are often bullies themselves.
…but, not in this case.
studentb,
DREMT is clearly *so* bothered by the stalking that he goes ahead and shares his YouTube, social media, real name, and face with a bunch of internet strangersthen sticks around for years to keep posting.
The “voucher” returns to blame me for his new buddy’s actions. I just linked to a YouTube video, John. I didn’t ask for anything that happened after. You know, eventually you will have to accept that your friend is at fault. Especially given that prior to the posting of any YouTube video, he was already finding out roughly where I lived from my IP address at the other blog, and posting that on here. You say, “oh well, that’s not identifying information”, as if that somehow makes it OK!
> All because
…not in this case.
Why, then?
21 comments so far by Graham D. Warner in this thread.
In two days.
All of them are playing the ref.
When under attack, I defend myself.
Speaking of Moon, if looking for meteor showers, it shouldn’t in the way after midnight and it’s first quarter. Also sun is active and could see northern lights.
Do northern lights interfere with seeing falling stars- I don’t know.
But I think I will take a look, tonite.
The northern lights are actually farther away than the meteors in a typical meteor shower.
I have seen both at the same time.
–The northern lights are actually farther away than the meteors in a typical meteor shower.
I have seen both at the same time.–
Oh, noticed:
“PERSEIDS AND AURORAS: A new model from NOAA shows three CMEs washing over Earth during the next 24-48 hours. This could cause episodes of G1 to G2-class geomagnetic storms on Aug. 11th and 12th. The timing is perfect for northern photographers, who may be able to catch both meteors and auroras in their night sky exposures”
https://spaceweather.com/
The thing about Auroras they seems brighter with camera exposure time {as would the meteors}.
Hear, hear.
The only ones here who have been consistently exceeding the 10 a day limit (averaged over the month) are Swens0n, Willard and DREMT (less consistently).
In the April report thread, Swens0n and Willard accounted for almost half of the 5700 comments, more than 40 per day each.
Clint used to be up there too, but he appears to have got himself a job this year.
(I wonder how Dr Spencer feels about someone imitating him, yet posting hundreds of the same comment)
If you’re referring to me, I’m certainly not imitating Dr Spencer. I’ve politely requested people stop t-word-ing for years, and that’s about it. That’s the worst thing I’ve done. And, as I said before, if Dr Spencer wants me to stop writing “please stop t-word-ing”, he only has to say, and I will of course stop.
I personally think it would be better if the people I asked to stop t-word-ing would just stop t-word-ing, but there you go.
He has banned the t-word, solely because of you and Flynn. And Flynn got the idea off you. How much more of a hint do you need.
There is nothing polite about spamming every thread with hundreds of the same comment.
“He has banned the t-word, solely because of you and Flynn.”
You assume. Dr Spencer banned a whole bunch of “insult” words, at the same time. Personally, I assume it was to try to stop people insulting each other, generally.
“There is nothing polite about spamming every thread with hundreds of the same comment.”
There is nothing polite about people t-word-ing.
I assume nothing. I am the one who suggested he ban those words, and he agreed.
And thanks for restating my comment about spamming in your own words.
Antonin, please stop t-word-ing.
“I am the one who suggested he ban those words, and he agreed.”
It’s great to see that AQ is also looking out for the well-being of the blog. Kudos to him.
Antonin just wants his enemies banned, as we saw recently with Swens0n. Both Antonin and Little Willy were openly campaigning for him to go.
I don’t have “enemies”, only people who should be dealt with because they can’t behave. Interesting that you think in those terms.
Yeah, right.
Mr Spencer
Would you please do something about this type of comment which amounts to “negative noise with no useful input”.
What type of comment? The one you just made, at 1:08 AM? Or the one you made at 12:40 AM? Or, the one you made at 9:59 PM? Or, the one you made at 6:40 PM? They’re all great examples of “negative noise with no useful input”.
Now you’re going to pretend as a point-scoring exercise that comments don’t randomly appear down here instead of where they were supposed to go. You know EXACTLY what I was referring to, and feigning ignorance shows again who is the real t-word.
More “negative noise with no useful input”, from Antonin.
‘Do not feed the troll.’
-An old Usenet adage.
OK, we’ll try not to feed you.
The dog yelps that stick hits.
I’m not the problem at this blog.
So you don’t troll, or feed trolls, just comment everything that moves? *plonk*
More accurately, there’s just a lot of people keen to respond to me, so I get caught up in a lot of long back and forths with various commenters. However, it’s day 15 since this article has been open for comments, and this will be my 147th comment under it. So, although I’m commenting more than I’d like, I’m still under the 10 comments a day limit.
How ironic.
Dr Spencer posts a code of conduct for commenters and the comments quickly descend into insults.
No insults from me (as usual).
“Little Willy”
As usual.
An affectionate nickname, earned through his repeated failure to use my screen name correctly.
Funny how you can self-justify anything.
Heads up – Dr Spencer’s actions are not just about dealing with possible effects on the recipient of the attack. They are about improving the general sense of decorum here.
He knows I will call him “Willard” again when he starts calling me “DREMT”.
Speaking of decorum…what does he call Gordon, again?
You seem to believe I support his name-calling. The problem is BOTH of you.
In what sense is “DREMT” offensive? You DO realise it’s an abbreviation, right? Should I get offended when people call me AQ? What do you expect him to call you? That ridiculous long “name” of yours?
There is no name-calling from me besides “Little Willy”, and I have explained why I call him that.
“DREMT” is not at all offensive. That’s why I want him to start calling me that, instead of all the other names he has called me, and continues to call me.
“Explaining” it does not make it appropriate. What a world we would live in if insults were OK provided they could be “explained” to the satisfaction of the insulter. Let’s call it Trumptopia.
I think it’s appropriate that the guy who has a pet name for every commenter he dislikes should have his own pet name:
He uses what he thinks is my real name for me (which is totally unacceptable).
He calls Clint R “Puffman”.
He calls Gordon Robertson “Mr Asshat”.
He calls Stephen P. Anderson “Troglodyte”.
He calls Bill Hunter “Gill”.
He calls Ken “Kennui”
…and on and on. If the best you have against me is that I call Willard “Little Willy” and I regularly request that people stop t-word-ing, then you’re going to find it a struggle to get me banned, which is what you ultimately want. Fact is, I’m an extraordinarily patient commenter who puts up with an incredible amount of abuse and condescension with only the occasional insult in return (under extreme provocation).
Swens0n gave as good as he got, Clint R dishes out a small fraction of what he’s received, and poor Gordon is just a nice guy that is relentlessly attacked because of the views he holds.
Mate, you’re the one who linked to your YouTube channel complete with your name. You can’t complain about someone using your name if you’ve chosen to share it.
Interesting that your only means of claiming not to be bad is to say “hey look, I’ve found someone worse”.
Using the “he did it first” excuse is pretty damn juvenile.
I linked to a YouTube video. To get to my name you have to choose to go to my channel and then click on another link to a Facebook page. At the time, I had no idea that my FB page displayed my name like that. I haven’t bothered to change it since, because the damage is already done. Posting my name is his choice, though, ultimately.
Are you the sort that says rape victims ought not to have dressed so provocatively!? Same principle. Obviously the offence is nothing like as bad as rape, but it’s the same principle.
It is nothing like the same principle. He is ONLY using your name. Are you embarrassed by your name?
And why did you say “what he THINKS is my real name”.
How could ANYONE not know their Facebook page displays their name. Your pleas are just not believable. And my memory is that you were using your Facebook to promote your channel.
Well, your memory is wrong.
The FB page is a music/artist page, not a personal profile. So no, I didn’t know. When I clicked on my artist page, it did not show me my name.
Tired of people accusing me of lying!
Tired of people lying.
Like “no insults from me” … dead off the bat.
And like your claim that you are merely making a polite request, when your aim is clearly to stomp all over discussions and shut down commentary that you had never even bothered to get involved in.
Am I on trial here!? Gee whizz.
You clearly expect to be able to do as you wish without question.
Should we call you DRUMPF?
Countless times you have stomped on discussions about science with your PST-ing comment. You choose to DEFINE science that you disagree with as T-ing. Or should I say, science that you disagree with where you are too far out of your depth to enter into the discussion. Why do you have such a need to impose yourself on discussions that have nothing to do with you.
And I forgot one: Feigning ignorance. That is lying.
Dr. Spencer: Your daily limit of 10 appears not to be working.
I’m responsible for what I’m responsible for. Very little, of note.
Should we discuss the time you told me to kill myself?
Sure. Please link to it as a reference.
> There is no name-calling from me besides “Little Willy”
Patently false.
Blob thinks you are wrong.
Just sayin
If you fancy searching for hours through the wayback machine, be my guest, Antonin.
DREMT,
I traced back to when your real name first started appearing here. While I agree that it’s inappropriate for your real name to be used regularly, I also find this quite interesting:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1576817
Care to comment?
Yes – it was funny.
You leaked his real name, or what you believed it to be, yet now you’re portraying yourself as the victim.
Huh? Tim Folkerts posts under his real name.
21 comments so far by Graham D. Warner today.
Not the first time he conflates nicknaming with namecalling.
Speaking of real names…I’ve mentioned this many times before so doing it again here is nothing new, but mine is Brian Gideon. bdgwx is my initials plus wx which is the ITU-R M.1172 shorthand for weather. It is a handle I’ve used for 20+ years so I try to stick to it when possible.
"Not the first time he conflates nicknaming with namecalling."
Ah, that’s OK then. I was under the impression that I was being charged with the heinous crime of name-calling Willard "Little Willy", but the man himself has confirmed it’s just innocent nicknaming – exactly like I said:
"An affectionate nickname, earned through his repeated failure to use my screen name correctly."
bdgwx turns up to act like posting your real name ain’t a thang. Sure, bdgwx…but have you ever had someone post where you live on a blog after finding out that information from tracking your IP address on another blog? Nah, of course you haven’t.
No matter what level of abuse I’m subjected to…it’s all fine, according to "Team Science" (TM).
I’m not saying anonymity is a bad thing or that doxing is a good thing. My post should not be seen as a generalization of those positions. It is only my own preference that I post without implied anonymity. I’m always more than happy to provide people with my name when asked. I just figured this subthread was a good time to remind some people that I’m not an anonymous poster. And to answer your question…people talk about where I live all of the time. It’s not a secret that I live in St. Louis. Again, that’s not an endorsement of doxing. I’m just saying I don’t have any specific interest in hiding either my identity or location.
“…people talk about where I live all of the time”
That’s nice, but not what I asked. Don’t worry, it was pretty much a rhetorical question, anyway.
I’m glad you thought this was a good moment to share that you’re not really an anonymous commenter.
Now, my trial can continue…
I think if you read the fine print Dr. Spencer said it is OK to insult nitwits from Wales.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-08-10.gif
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2024-08-10.gif
When Blindsley H00d posts a temperature chart or two, he surely wants to show us something about global cooling, so it’s no wonder that, as if by magic and coincidence, he chooses the sources that show it best.
Tell me what GFS says and why. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1682793
I don’t tell you anything, Blindsley H00d.
YOU tell us here why you persist since years to exclusively talk about a global cooling that doesn’t exist.
I have to say the comments in here today are great! LOL
Is this something to do with the moon?
I am glad there is a determined effort to cut down the abusive attacks and needless screaming that has been going on here.
I Administrate a small science blog where I had to ban Douglas Cotton and LOLClimateKatastrophekook and helped in another large science blog block out D. Cotton and also helped Watts Up With That? permanently shut down D. Cotton when I was moderator there.
There is a way to block them out permanently but that requires diligence otherwise they will skate through the first post moderation barrier they get approved on and once again undue all the work banning the pest.
Instead of always banning people you can put some of them on permanent Moderation instead to shut them down without talking away the IP they are using.
There are other ways to stop problem people too…………
Is this your subtle way of asking Roy to make you the blog moderator?
It would be a blessing to get rid of the 90+% rubbish in the comments.
Comments today are useless. They should be valuable additions.
My suggestion is you limit posts per person per thread to five.
If someone posts more than five, you ban them.
If someone – in your sovereign opinion – writes rubbish, you ban them.
If a subject is extraordinary interesting, demanding more than five answers, make a follow up post the next day.
Most commenters has valuable things to say. This way they can choose to do so.
Thank you for blogging!
Being on topic is the primary requirement. Talking about other ommenters is usually not on topic.
5 comments is a good limit, if can be implemented.
Sounds good to me. I’m prone to give back what I get where insults are concerned, but as you can tell from my creating a plug-in for that purpose I’d sooner not see that kind of traffic at all. I’ll take my chances on Dr. Roy being a fair moderator if it means the blog is dominated by reasoned commentary.
When I first started commenting here, D-C was still on the blog. I could see he wanted to be a Skeptic, but he had his science wrong. He had invented the term “maximum entropy”, in an attempt to discredit the GHE. When I tried to correct him, he became belligerent. Soon after, he was banned.
I have noticed this same behavior with others that want to be Skeptics. They believe false beliefs can cancel opposing false beliefs, so they avoid learning any science. It’s one cult fighting another cult. Or one false religion fighting another false religion.
Then there are the hard-core cultists that attack, falsely accuse, stalk, and are filled with hate.
Which raises an interesting question — Skeptics have been banned here, but have any Alarmists been banned?
> Skeptic […] false religion […] hard-core cultists […] filled with hate […] Alarmists
Five insults right there.
Most contrarians disagree with one another, so at the very least most of them are wrong. Notwithstanding those who are not even wrong, it should go without saying.
To be a skeptic one has to apply skepticism. Labeling oneself “skeptic” isn’t enough. In fact one might argue that this is as insulting as the D-word.
Yes Willard, you consider reality an insult.
That’s my point….
(And I won’t be responding to your next stalking effort. As someone one said “Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.”
Yes but it can be fun, you get dirty, just don’t pick a pig with big sharp tusks.
Clint hits the nail on the head! “I could see he wanted to be a Skeptic, but he had his science wrong.”
This pretty much sums up most ‘skepticism’ here. Each skeptic is sure that their position is correct, and that all those who disagree — skeptics as well as actual scientists — are somehow missing out on some critical, important idea.
Surely 1,000s of scientists working for decades (or centuries) never considered *my* point! If only scientists knew …
* the moon doesn’t rotate.
* Stefan-Boltzmann only applies from 500C – 1500C.
* the CO2 band is saturated so more CO2 won’t cause more warming.
* CO2 actually cools the earth, it doesn’t warm the earth.
* photons from cooler regions are simply rejected by warmer surfaces.
* the earth has been cooling for 4 billion years.
* how to add fluxes.
* how the 2LoT works.
There are plenty of things to be legitimately skeptical about. Like how MUCH warming will occur, or how MUCH to spend trying to mitigate warming. Or whether any specific heat wave or flood can be attributed to climate change.
I think you raised an important issue whether you intended it or not. The use of stereotypes and strawman claims does not lead to a useful or civil discussion of genuine issues. Claiming that someone is one of “those” people is an insult in my opinion.
As a genuine skeptic who is also skeptical of skeptics, I seem to get push back from both “sides”. I have even received comments to the effect of which side or you on?
If I make a mistake and can be proven wrong, I will accept that. On the other hand, when I make a legitimate criticism and someone replies with “you’re one of those people”, I am done with that person at that point, except maybe to point out that I am not interested in defending claims I didn’t make.
Testing the one hour rule here, on the subject of “things to be legitimately skeptical about”, my biggest concerns are news media who do not understand that “new” studies are speculative, and just about anyone who thinks variability in seasonal weather is “evidence of climate change”.
Folkerts, I count 8 things on your list (starred). Some are correct, some are not. Can you identify which is which?
I find 6 to be wrong and the last two are essay questions.
I am sure Clint R will disagree, but then he sold all his physics textbooks.
“Stefan-Boltzmann only applies from 500C 1500C.”
That is the temperature range there is evidence for. The rest is interpolation. Does not explain how chrome hot water radiators show so much difference in the heat transferred which cannot be by radiation (as bright chrome has a very low emission spectrum because it is reflective). Convection can be shown to fill in the ‘gap’.
My main point is Clint’s main point. This is “one cult fighting another cult” in the bowels of a blog. This is people who present their own opinions and “avoid learning any science”. Different people may have their own opinions about which are right and wrong.
When non-scientists disagree with scientists about basic science, pretty much always the scientists are right. They have considered all the arguments for decades or for centuries. Scientists have an intricate, interconnected set of rules that have been tested by decades of experiments.
You can’t just say “classical mechanics is right, EXCEPT for the rotation of the moon”. You can’t just say “S-B works perfectly from arbitrary limits of 500C – 1500C, BUT suddenly fails at 499C or 1501 C.”
Richard Feynman said “Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.” You can’t pull one thread loose without pulling loose a hundred other pieces of the puzzle.
“That is the temperature range there is evidence for. “
Absolutely not! That might have been the temperature range for which there was evidence 150 years ago, but there is direct evidence over a MUCH broader range now.
Convection is a SEPARATE issue. Chrome radiators do not contradict S-B.
Folkerts, can you say which of your 8 items are right, and which are wrong?
You threw this nonsense at the wall. Are you unable to support it?
RLH
YOU: “Does not explain how chrome hot water radiators show so much difference in the heat transferred which cannot be by radiation (as bright chrome has a very low emission spectrum because it is reflective). Convection can be shown to fill in the gap.”
You have brought up this point before. I actually did explain it to you with equations on heat transfer.
In your example (of Chrome radiators) it is done via convection. In this case convection is the dominant heat transfer mechanism.
You could test your ideas if you had a vacuum chamber with zero convection. You could have a chrome radiator filled with hot water and a black painted one with high emissivity and measure the rate the temperature drops.
Gordon Robertson also brings this up when he posts with a Pirani Gauge. I suggest you just merely consider our Moon. You can look at measured values of temperature drop when the Sun no longer shines on the surface. If you do some calculations with the Moon temperature and heat content of the surface you will find the S&B Law is satisfied.
Scientists have done many experiments with the S&B Law over many temperatures with many materials. It is considered a Law in science because it works on all experiments tested so far. Like the Law of Gravitation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. It is a Law when it applies to all known situations and does not show deviation in any of the areas studied.
I soon hope you do research on the topic on your own and quit bringing up an incorrect scientific point.
It seems Dr. Spencer wants this to be a more scientific blog. That would require some work on your part. Research things more and then bring up issues you can find.
There is a distinction between theoretical science and applied science. Climate models are not assumed to be accurate or even useful in some cases (Russian Science Federation) just because they are based on sound scientific principles and accurate data. Gavin Schmidt can make all the claims he wants about the accuracy of his favorite models. The fact remains that there is a wide range of results and all of them rely on calibration with measured data that varies depending on the source and type.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/are-climate-models-predicting-too
Okay, we can add Andrew Dessler to the list of Climate Change Advocates (polite word) who disagree with me. I could go find a list of very well qualified people who agree with my position. To heck with the science, Let’s vote on it!
“Convection is a SEPARATE issue. Chrome radiators do not contradict S-B.”
So S-B is wrong when low (normal water) temperatures are considered. It only considers RADIATION. It does not consider CONVECTION.
“S-B works perfectly from arbitrary limits of 500C 1500C, BUT suddenly fails at 499C or 1501 C.”
No-one said that but you.
“So S-B is wrong when low (normal water) temperatures are considered. It only considers RADIATION. It does not consider CONVECTION.”
You seem quite confused. S-B is a law about radiation. So by definition, it does not include convection. That does not make it ‘wrong’ about low temperatures.
“So by definition, it does not include convection.”
Which, as chrome water radiators show, is important at low (normal) water temperatures.
RHL, of COURSE convection is important in many circumstances for heat flow. No one says it is not!
But your objection is like saying “Capacitors are important in AC circuits, so Ohm’s Law for resistors is wrong.”
Stephen-Boltzmann works at all temperatures, see here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Stephen did the experimental work.
Boltzmann die the theoretical work.
"Which raises an interesting question — Skeptics have been banned here, but have any Alarmists been banned?"
Yes, that is a very interesting question. The only "alarmist" I can think of that has ever been banned is David App.ell. And that was because he continuously attacked Dr Spencer, personally. The fact is, this site is absolutely swamped by "alarmist" commenters. That side of the debate, anyway, whatever you want to call them. I can’t foresee any of them ever getting banned, being as how some of them have already transgressed the rules of reasonable and fair debating to such an extent that it’s comical, and they’re all still here!
My prediction is that any and all further bans will be of GHE skeptics. I’d be delighted to be proven wrong on that one, though.
Graham, can you quit stirring the pot?
You don’t have the right to call me by that name.
As this is being done by someone on your side of the climate fence, perhaps you should consider the possibility that your idea of the level of transgression of different people is somewhat skewed.
My feeling is that of those remaining, 1 denier and 1 non-denier should be banned immediately, with many others put on watch.
What does “swamped” mean? In the July thread I counted 10 apiece amongst those who weren’t posting one-off. And Gordon WILL return.
> My feeling
AQ once again tries to establish himself as the tone police.
DREMT, It is very interesting how you frame this as being about “alarmists”.
“The only “alarmist” I can think of that has ever been banned … “
Being banned is not about ‘skeptics’ or ‘alarmist’. It is about being rude / aggressive / angry.
“this site is absolutely swamped by “alarmist” commenters.”
I see almost no “alarmist” commenters. Former Senator Inhofe described alarmists this way: “Global warming alarmists see a future plagued by catastrophic flooding, war, terrorism, economic dislocations, droughts, crop failures, mosquitoborne diseases, and harsh weather all caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions.” There are precious few comments that discuss any such ‘alarmist’ topics.
What this site *is* swamped by is ‘sammich requests’ and ‘you’re a t___ / no you’re a t_____’ and ‘the moon does not rotate’ and such things. Topics that have nothing to do with climate, let alone ‘alarmism’.
“That side of the debate, anyway, whatever you want to call them.”
Which ‘debate’ do you mean? Dr Spencer has clearly stated that the follow are not up for debate.
* Yes, the Greenhouse Effect is like a Real Greenhouse
* No, the Saturation Effect of Increasing CO2 on Global Temperatures is Not Being Ignored in Global Warming Projections
* Yes, the Cold Atmosphere can Keep the Surface Warmer than if the GHE Did Not Exist
Most of the ‘debates’ are propelled along by people who say we need to learn science, but that science is a hoax and a cult and incorrect. And most have nothing to do with “alarmists”.
Tim, I’m not trying to “frame” it as anything. I was responding to Clint R, who used the “alarmist” term. I just take that as meaning those that are on a certain side of the debate. The side that calls the other side “contrarian/denier/crank”.
Graham D. Warner refers to those who acknowledge the greenhouse effect by the A-word all the time. Alarmism has an orthogonal meaning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarmism
The “overemphasized and unwarranted” part is seldom justified scientifically.
In Climateball, the A-word is almost always used as a non-neutral label, including by those who dislike the D-word.
Folkerts sees “almost no Alarmist commenters” here!
Notice how he twists things. That’s what he always does. He has to….
Folkerts is the one that has tried to promote the concept that ice cubes can boil water. But, the then denies that ice cubes can boil water!
“The side that calls the other side contrarian/denier/crank.”
Several regulars here, who deny mainstream well-established science, are in this category.
The genuine skeptics, such as Roy Spencer don’t deny mainstream well-established science.
Most proponents of AGW and the GHE who visit here do not appear to be ‘alarmists’, but are labeled as such anyway just to insult them.
Yes, Clint R, they sure like to twist anything you say into the most negative light possible. I even put scare quotes around “alarmist” to show I don’t really agree with the use of the term and tried to make sure it was clear I was just referring to one particular, well-known “side” of the climate debate.
As usual, somehow I’m the villain.
You’ve got several things wrong, Nate.
First, what are you calling “mainstream well-established science”? Remember, beliefs ain’t science and if something violates the Laws of Physics, it ain’t science either.
Second, Roy is not a “genuine” Skeptic. By his own words he’s a “Lukewarmer”.
My definitions:
(Beliefs ain’t science, but to be fair and balanced, I’m using the word “believes” for each category.)
Alarmist — Believes CO2 is warming the planet dangerously. Unless something is done quickly, Earth will be like Venus.
Warmist — Believes CO2 is warming the planet, but we have time to do something.
Lukewarmer — Believes CO2 is warming the planet, but it is so insignificant we don’t have to take any immediate or unreasonable action.
Skeptic — Believes the CO2 nonsense violates the Law of Physics. Consequently any observed warming is due to something else.
Those are my definitions, YMMV.
> YMMV
If “Y” refers to common Climateball usage, then we have this dictionary:
An alarmist believes in excessive or exaggerated alarm of a real or imagined threat, e.g. Net Zero will get us all killed, slaves, or worse.
A doomer believes that the IPCC is too conservative, but that doesn’t matter because we’re all cooked anyway.
A lukewarmer bets that climate sensitivity is under 3C but that we still need something about AGW.
A luckwarmer bets that climate sensitivity is under the limits of justified disingenuousness (ca 2C, so under the IPCC range), therefore there’s nothing to worry about even if a low sensitivity will get us beyond 5C eventually anyway.
A denier keeps denying the greenhouse effect, that the greenhouse effect is anthropogenic, or that there eventually will be dire consequences for AGW.
A crank is an annoying denier who clings to eccentric and very minotarian views about the Moon, basic radiative properties or else.
A contrarian takes a contrary position or attitude regarding the established view, for instance Warren Buffett or Jim Hansen.
The only label that has yet to find currency refers to someone who supports the established viewpoint, i.e. the IPCC, while acknowledging that science moves one funeral at a time. For that class I propose Team Science. Literate would also be fine.
Oh, and skeptic refers to TS, the truest spirit of an inquisitive mind to whom we should all bow, if only because he’s the only one here with a sense of humor.
I can work without using any of these labels except “contrarian.” And to prove so from now on I will refrain from using them.
“Alarmist Believes CO2 is warming the planet dangerously. Unless something is done quickly, Earth will be like Venus.”
No one posting here thinks Earth will ever be like Venus, AFAIK.
Then none qualify as alarmists.
“Skeptic Believes the CO2 nonsense violates the Law of Physics. Consequently any observed warming is due to something else.”
Roy pointed out in his previous article this week that such beliefs are unsupported by any science.
Then holding such beliefs certainly qualifies one as a science denier.
Nate says:
“August 13, 2024 at 3:14 PM
Alarmist Believes CO2 is warming the planet dangerously. Unless something is done quickly, Earth will be like Venus.
No one posting here thinks Earth will ever be like Venus, AFAIK.
Then none qualify as alarmists.”
I tend to think of alarmists as news reporters.
If bleeds it leads, or, they have always been alarmists.
And tend to not say anything, if it’s seriously important.
I can’t point to an alarmist who blogs, here.
Though when I say the obvious, like we in an Ice Age, some could consider that as something an alarmist would say.\
I don’t think it’s a problem that we are in an Ice Age.
And it certainly is not a problem any government should want to “solve”.
We have alarmists which frighten children- and that should be stopped.
Most adults only “sort of kind of take it”, slightly seriously. And/or just find the stupidity slightly amusing.
And everyone laughs, when you say, CNN is objective.
–Nate says:
August 13, 2024 at 3:19 PM
Skeptic Believes the CO2 nonsense violates the Law of Physics. Consequently any observed warming is due to something else.
Roy pointed out in his previous article this week that such beliefs are unsupported by any science.
Then holding such beliefs certainly qualifies one as a science denier.–
Science denier is a silly term.
Denying the Holocaust, could count as being evil, but one should tend, to assume, at first, it’s just the dime a dozen stupidity.
Most people aren’t even interested in history- unless the most people have recently lived in it. Such as those in eastern Europe. Or East Germany. Not to mention Iran or North Korea, and, etc, etc.
We are living in the best of time, despite the etc and etc.
There are a couple who post here who often come across as alarmists. I won’t name any names. I’m not a GHE denier but I’m not a believer in AGW. I find 60F of warming due to radiative imbalance because of a very slight percent of the atmosphere difficult to fathom. I agree with Berry’s model that most of the CO2 rise has been natural. I believe most of GHE is due to water vapor and that CO2 is pretty inconsequential. I think climate sensitivity is pretty low. But, I don’t think even if we do initiate all these tougher emission standards it won’t matter because China, India, and the third world are going to try to catch up and they will burn fossil fuels doing it.
OK, so I’ll include “warmist” with “alarmist” from Clint R’s list of terms and say, that’s the general “side” of the climate debate I was referring to. Those two groups.
Clint, it’s good to see you finally define everyone here out of being an “alarmist”. Because I’m not aware of anyone here who claims that the earth will become anything like Venus. Now you can cease using the term. Or will you redefine it to suit?
If you don’t think the Earth will become like Venus, then you need to study the Main Sequence and what happens to stars like the Sun when they consume all the hydrogen fuel they have.
It is well understood that when that happens the Sun will swell in size until it envelops the Earth.
The Sun will brighten and put out more energy as it burns up the hydrogen fuel.
It’s not about if the Sun gets bright enough to turn the Earth Venus like, it’s about when.
We want to stay away from the knee in the water vapor pressure curve at about 40C.
Things are already getting crappy.
OK, bob.
DREMT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence
Lol, yes bob. Utterly irrelevant to what anyone was actually talking about.
DREMT,
The topic was will the Earth ever be like Venus.
The answer is yes, and the cite of mine supports that.
You shouldn’t comment on anything Astronomical, ever.
“The topic was will the Earth ever be like Venus…”
…due to AGW, bob. The topic was will the Earth ever be like Venus due to AGW. Hence your point was utterly irrelevant.
DREMT,
And all the rest.
Whether or not AGW will make the Earth like Venus remains to be seen.
The water vapor feedback accelerates with increasing temperature.
Guess we will put you down as “alarmist”, then.
DREMT,
One is either an alarmist or has their head in the sand or some other dark location when it comes to CO2 levels in our atmosphere.
We do have enough coal and oil to turn our atmosphere into something like Venus if we burn it all.
I also want to use the least expensive source of electricity, and right now it’s not coal and oil.
We’ve got you down as an "alarmist", bob. No need to continue.
DREMT,
“Weve got you down as an “alarmist”, bob. No need to continue.”
It’s the morally and scientifically correct position.
No need to continue.
I will continue until your morals and science are correct.
You have a bit of work to do to get this sorted.
#2
No need to continue.
I disagree, we have to continue util your morals and science improve.
That’s just more abuse, bob.
You know, I don’t have to leave. It’s a choice I’ve made, but I can always change my mind.
Calling out your lack of morals and scientific insight is not abuse.
More abuse.
If you don’t want me to leave, keep responding.
Gee is DREMT really that powerless to control his own behavior…?
Don’t leave, just learn some science from those of us willing to teach.
And we’ll pray for your morals.
“Being banned is not about ‘skeptics’ or ‘alarmist’. It is about being rude / aggressive / angry.“
…but that was kind of my point, Tim. That is indeed what we’re told it should be about. Whilst I don’t agree with banning anybody, if you’re going to ban people, it seems unfair if they’re always people who just happen to be GHE skeptics. I mean, if you want an example of an “alarmist/warmist” commenter being rude, just look up from this comment. All I’m saying is, “alarmist/warmist” commenters seem to have been getting away with it for quite some time. I’ll believe one will be banned when I see it.
Gee, when I posted a whole day later, DREMT moaned that I was “drifting in after the commenters have moved on”
But here HE is commenting on a 10 days old post, with the poster long gone from the thread.
Obviously, Tim might not even see that response, as it was some time ago that he last commented. However, my aim was simply to get the sub-thread back on topic to my original post, and I had to go back quite far to do so.
Let’s face it, rarely will some people ever acknowledge their hypocrisy.
So, is the sub-thread finally back on-topic? Or are people still playing the man and not the ball?
“Or are people still playing the man not the ball”
Surprising, given that this thread was started with “being as how some of them have already transgressed the rules of reasonable and fair debating to such an extent that its comical, and theyre all still here!”
Looks like Nate wants to talk to me, again. Since I’m leaving, anyway, he can have another chance.
Does Nate dispute that there are some “alarmist/warmist” commenters here who have “transgressed the rules of reasonable and fair debating to such an extent that it’s comical“?
You really don’t see why some would find this
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1684713
to be comical, when the vast majority of your posts in these comments are about other poster’s alleged bad behavior.
Very often you focus on the ‘playing the man not the ball’.
“…the vast majority of your posts in these comments are about other poster’s alleged bad behavior.”
False. The vast majority of my posts in these comments are me defending myself. Looks like this is going to be yet another of those threads.
What you call “me defending myself”, I call “complaining about other poster’s alleged behavior”.
Neither is about the science.
I’ve written a handful of comments complaining about the way I’ve been treated. That’s what you would call "complaining about other poster’s alleged behavior". However, that’s a handful of the comments under this article. The majority of my comments are spent defending myself from attack by others. Read through the comments, Nate, and try being a bit less overly critical. Try not to just make stuff up.
This article is not about science. It’s about Dr Spencer’s new comment policy, which involves banning regularly insulting commenters. So, expect the comments to be about the behaviour of commenters.
Everyone has moved on to other topics and the science.
Many, including you, have gone on to discuss politics and other subjects further down-thread, yes…but you’re also here, in an on-topic thread, complaining at me for being on-topic. “You couldn’t make it up”.
The only point I wanted to make was that bad behavior is not exclusive to your opponents.
As exemplified here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1684562
Then came the excuses.
Is that your way of conceding your behaviour is bad?
More blaming others, on and on it goes…
So you don’t “drift” into discussions after everyone has moved on, to sneak a last word in?
“So you dont drift into discussions after everyone has moved on, to sneak a last word in?”
No. I was busy until the next day, when I saw Clint’s comment, which was a response to me, and so I responded to it.
Not unusual for many at this blog.
While your response to Tim 10 days later is just fine?
I guess you are hyper tuned-in to tactics that you have practiced.
Come now, Nate. No need to fib, is there? You “drift” all the time. It is pretty much your M.O. Here’s one, thirteen days later:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1684925
That one was simply me reading the wrong date.
But this is still you thinking your opponents simply must have nefarious intentions.
“Then came the excuses”…
How about this one, Nate?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1684204
I rarely read his posts. I happened to read that one and responded when I did. He is free to respond in kind.
If you think that it is reprehensible to respond a day or more later, explain why.
Then explain why it is ok for YOU to do it.
I didn’t “drift”, Nate. The thread was still active. You and bob were still responding at the time. The idea was to get the thread back on-topic, so for you or bob to reply to what I had said to Tim. You’re the “drifter”.
“I didnt drift, Nate. ”
Again, you complained about my posting a day late, which you called ‘drift’, based on what?
It is ‘bad behavior’ why?
And you don’t address the content of my post, which was science.
So good example of ‘playing the man not the ball’, again.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1683181
And my thread was still active.
Plainly this is a double standard.
Clint R had finished here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1683543
That was obvious. So you decided to “drift” in, hoping for that last word, knowing Clint R would be long gone.
That’s why you seem to despise me so much. I don’t let you get the last word.
So what? If Clint doesn’t want to continue, that is HIS choice. Obviously others did.
This is getting to be rather ridiculous.
As you are aware, I like to argue. So my posts contain arguments intended to be read by my opponents.
Nothing whatsoever to do with being some sort of last place-holder.
That is your special hobby, not mine.
How bout move on to a real topic?
Nate…you always want the last word. I always get the last word. The reason for that is, I got fed up of people making ridiculous comments like, “you fled the scene”, or, “obviously you had no rebuttal” whenever I just got fed up of people not listening, and decided to stop commenting on a thread. So, I made a conscious decision to always see an argument through to the bitter end.
Don’t try to pretend you’re not extremely persistent and keen to get the last word yourself, though. And, I’m not the only one to have commented on the habit of people “drifting” to get the last word. You’re not the only person who does it, either.
If you want to change topics, that’s fine…but you were the one who brought it up on this thread, in the first place. Maybe we could get back on-topic to this sub-thread, as I intended in the first place…or, if you don’t want to discuss that, maybe you could just stop responding?
Maybe you could explain why, after I made it clear I had no interest in discussing things with you any more, you followed me around from thread to thread for years, constantly leaving snide personal remarks? That was back when I was reading, but not responding to you. I doubt very much it changed when I stopped reading your comments.
If the new topic is DREMT’s old grievances, I am really not interested.
I also suggested getting back on-topic to the sub-thread, as I originally intended, but there’s little hope in getting Nate to remain on-topic.
This is all good. My only concern is disappearing people without explanation.
I’ve been banned from other blogs, eg Postma’s, and Berry’s, simply for disagreeing with the owner of the blog on the science, and backing it up with evidence.
One would like to be sure that can’t happen here.
Speaking of Postma…I saw one report that Postma was editing posts to make it look like posters were saying something they didn’t actually say. Did you see any evidence of that?
Yes, he did that to my post.
Oh wow. I hadn’t realized that happen to you. It was because I had heard he was editing peoples posts that I decided to avoid commenting on his blog.
He did that to me as well. And he accused me of being someone I had never heard of. He is just about the most revolting individual I have encountered, beating everyone here, even Flynn.
He claims to be an astrophysicist, when all he is is the manager of the research laboratories at Calgary U, which happens to include the astrophysics laboratory.
Similar to 1000frolly (Robert Holmes), who claims to have a degree in climate science, when all he has is a PhD on the control of methane emissions in mines.
I thought you got banned on Berry’s blog for being insulting if I remember correctly. But, I think you could post there. I’m pretty sure you could. You kept bringing up the Revelle Factor but not showing how it fits into the conservation of mass. His whole model is based on the conservation of mass.
> I thought you got banned on Berrys blog for being insulting if I remember correctly
That should be easy to support. Here is the thread:
https://edberry.com/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/#comment-98068
I wonder who that commenter was.
Stephen,
“You kept bringing up the Revelle Factor but not showing how it fits into the conservation of mass. His whole model is based on the conservation of mass.”
The Revelle Factor has been understood for 60 y to play a central role in the sink rate for carbon into the ocean.
Berry simply does not consider the Revelle Factor in his carbon cycle model. He simply asserts, without a science rationale, that it does not matter.
And therefore his model cannot explain the rise in atmospheric CO2 that has been observed.
The first paper to correctly incorporate Revell Factor was Bolin and Erickson 1958. They predicted that Anthro CO2 emissions would accumulate in the atmosphere, and produce an accelerating rise in atmospheric CO2 over the next de3cades.
Their projections come very close to the actual rise that indeed happened over the next 64 years.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/bolin.1958.carbon_uptake.pdf
Well, he does because it is implied in the solution to the first order linear differential equation. It is a component of eTime from atmosphere to surface ocean. If Revelle is a factor then eTime for human and natural CO2 should change. No one is saying it is changing. They just say human carbon eTime is different and long which is physically impossible. That’s Berry’s point. It would violate the Equivalence Principle.
Try to understand the paper I posted which accounts the rise of CO2 that has been observed, which Berry’s model cannot.
If you cannot understand this paper, then I don’t know why you feel confident to reject it.
Another interesting fact:
“The airborne fraction (AF) of carbon dioxide (CO2) is the ratio of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 to the annual emissions from human sources. It represents the percentage of human-emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere. The AF has remained relatively stable at around 45% over the past six decades”
Just another observation that Berry’s model embarrassingly fails to explain.
After a while one has to wonder what good is a model that cannot account for any of the observations.
“If Revelle is a factor then eTime for human and natural CO2 should change.”
The Revelle Factor is expected to change very slowly over decades as pH changes. Its effect on e-time will not be yet detectable.
Yeah, I agree with just about everything you just said and I don’t see much in the paper that would conflict with Berry’s model and if anything would support it. The only thing I see is the author presumes that all the atmospheric carbon increase is due to human fossil fuel.
“I dont see much in the paper that would conflict with Berrys model and if anything would support it. ”
Because of its inclusion of the Revelle Factor, it showed for the first time, that anthro emissions would NOT rapidly be removed into the ocean (as Berry argues), and thus would accumulate in the atmosphere, as it has done.
” The science of the people who want to be FREE ”
FREE from what? From any doubt that the blog owner over there could ever be wrong?
I’d like a system where we can vote some of the worst offenders ‘off the island’.
Some, like Robertson and Clint R, could easily vote you out if they had their way.
Bindidong creep would be first to go
Says the constantly abusive dachshund (which is why I gave him this name, as his behavior in this blog reminds me of that type of dog).
I guess it would be a double edged sword.
Does not work. But a red-team blue-team system with widely agreed bans could wotk for moderation. Wikipedia does not.
Parker Solar probe is going spend couple days out at Venus distance, going about 12.7 km/sec, then it drop into the sun, and get the closest to Sun on Sept 30 2024, and will be going about 176 km/sec.
And then in about month, will be back out at Venus distance, again.
https://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
How active the sun will be, near end of September.
Steve + aurora
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2024/12aug24/steve_strip.jpg
Wonderful!
“STEVE (Strong Thermal Emission Velocity Enhancement) is the pink ribbon of light in Griffin’s photo. It looks like an aurora, but it is not. The pink glow is caused by hot (3000C) ribbons of gas flowing through Earth’s magnetosphere faster than 13,000 mph. Strong geomagnetic storms do a good job of setting these ribbons in motion.”
Good policy. More people should read this “manual”: https://www.brookings.edu/books/the-constitution-of-knowledge/
It really comes down to personal beliefs. Reality is reality, but too many people want to make up their own “reality”. It happens on both sides of the political spectrum, but it is more prevalent on the Left. Just right here on this blog, you see people claiming that passenger jets fly backward. That’s an attempt to pervert reality to protect false beliefs. The false accusations, that are so common here, are just more efforts to pervert reality.
Clint R,
Who is claiming that passenger jets fly backwards?
A passenger jet flying west at 500 mph cannot keep up with the Earth rotating east at 1500 mph at the equator, so from high above the passenger jet is moving east at 1000 mph, which is the direction the tail is pointing.
It’s moving backwards but flying eastward.
This illustrates what is meant by the “passenger jets flying backwards” thing:
https://www.canva.com/design/DAGEEJSpSi4/qZ0QwpIqz7FeMW1IBycWyw/view?utm_content=DAGEEJSpSi4&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=editor
It never had anything to do with frames of reference.
That is a perspective from an inertial reference frame.
Which airplane is rotating?
It’s a simple question.
I wasn’t talking to you, bob.
But, the one on the left is "orbiting" and "spinning" (in the opposite direction to the "orbit", once per "orbit")…and the one on the right is just "orbiting".
DREMT,
Where is that definition of spinning, so you can correct yourself?
Because the one on the left is not spinning, and the one on the right is spinning.
It’s in the dictionary bob, where it’s always been.
DREMT,
If you use the one in the dictionary, then the Moon is rotating on its axis. Because every point of the Moon is making circles around an axis going through the Moon.
But that’s not the definition that you are using.
You simply can’t get it through your head that it’s the other motion that’s important.
The other motion being "orbit without spin".
DREMT,
“You simply cant get it through your head that its the other motion thats important.”
Is that an insult?
No such thing as orbit without spin.
According to the definition of spin, the Moon is spinning.
Don’t confuse the orbiting with the spinning.
“Is that an insult?”
No, but the rest of your response to me is. It’s an insult to the understanding I have spent years trying to build up. How can you still be so confused?
DREMT,
” I have spent years trying to build up.”
I think you have wasted your time trying to understand that the Moon doesn’t spin.
Because it does spin.
Good day, bob.
“Its in the dictionary bob, where its always been.”
Elsewhere you made the same claim. But could not back it up with any dictionary.
So this is becoming a pattern.
Nate felt obliged to comment, again.
Yes, your misrepresentation that your ‘definition of spin’ is found in the dictionary, and then unable to show that definition, has become a pattern.
That is worth pointing out.
"Where is that definition of spinning, so you can correct yourself?"
"Spin" – to rotate about an axis that is internal to the body in question.
That’s how it’s used in our discussions. Always has been, always will be.
All the definitions in dictionaries are variations on
“the act of turning around and around : an act of spinning
a rapid turning motion given to a ball by someone who throws or hits it”
Saying nothing in support of your notion that BOS has no spin.
The ‘illustration’ is showing passenger airplanes in ‘orbit’, which is an unreality and therefore proves nothing.
In the real universe, space shuttles have orbited as shown on the left.
Nate obviously still wants to talk to me. Let’s give him one last chance, then.
Does the ball on a string have one axis of rotation, or two?
DREMT,
“”Where is that definition of spinning, so you can correct yourself?”
“Spin” to rotate about an axis that is internal to the body in question.
Thats how its used in our discussions. Always has been, always will be.”
Using that definition, the Moon is spinning on an internal axis. That is an observation, not a theory or hypothesis.
If you say so, bob.
DREMT,
“Does the ball on a string have one axis of rotation, or two?”
If you call a revolution a rotation, it has at least 4.
But then a tail is not a leg.
Hilariously wrong, bob. Thank you.
Good boy!
Do you want a Mother Hubbard’s?
Oh you do, here you go.
Now go lie down.
Hopefully, your abuse will be noted. Thank you.
That’s a good boy.
Hopefully, your abuse will be noted.
Nobody has noticed all your barking.
Now have a good lie down.
"Nobody has noticed all your barking."
We’ll see.
Sit, lie down, roll over
More insults.
Those are not insults.
Treating me like I’m a dog is of course an insult, bob. Why do I need to explain that to someone?
OK, DREMT.
Yes.
Bill,
It’s really simple.
Some orbits are elliptical, and none are circular.
External rotations are circular.
Therefore no orbits are external rotations.
I don’t need to find a paper that says that.
Poor old bob. Struggles to post in the right place.
DREMT,
“What was your point again, exactly?”
Simple, a statement that a rotation around an external axis is an orbit, does not mean that an orbit is a rotation around an external axis.
Struggling to post in the right place, still, and struggling to come up with anything worthwhile to say…
If you say so, Nate. Will that be eternally all?
Don’t let a denial specialist like Clint R fool you.
Instead, feel free to compare one of his typical manipulations:
” Just right here on this blog, you see people claiming that passenger jets fly backward. ”
which is an intentional misrepresentation of what somebody wrote on the blog
with
Clint R’s claim that the Moon does not spin about any internal axis, and that all astronomers having computed the lunar spin’s period in the last centuries are ‘astrologers’.
The only guys who spend their time in false accusations on this blog are Clint R and a few tr0lls who thinks like him.
Bindi, are you going to start your nonsense again?
Cassini was an astrologer, sorry. He got his “laws” wrong, sorry. His “laws” are easily debunked, as you have seen. You’re a cultist with no interest In reality, sorry.
And Ent definitely sticks with his belief that passenger jets fly backward, unless he has retracted and I missed it. (If he’s retracted, please provide a link to his comment.)
Since you’ve got no viable model of “orbiting without spin”, you’re just throwing crap against the wall, as usual.
Clint R,
” His laws are easily debunked, as you have seen.”
Let’s have the debunking please.
DREMT,
Yes, there is such a thing as an axis of translation.
It is the line perpendicular to the path of the curvilinear translation in a circle. It exists, and I just described it
.
Ftops mathematical transformation does what the ball on a string does, it rotates on its axis as it revolves around the origin.
“Cassini was an astrologer, sorry. He got his laws wrong, sorry. His laws are easily debunked”
As usual you declare established science wrong, without offering any evidence whatsoever.
What is the point?
Oh well,
I forgot the obligatory response to an “Oh Well”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yq-Fw7C26Y
Bill,
Its really simple.
Some orbits are elliptical, and none are circular.
External rotations are circular.
Therefore no orbits are external rotations.
I dont need to find a paper that says that.
Astronomy 101.
Figures Nate and Bob would double down on what their daddy told them. Obviously they don’t know enough of the science behind what they believe their daddy told them to actually address a single point I made.
Bill attacks his opponents, because lacking sound arguments or evidence, what else can he do?
Nate everybody repeats what their daddy told them. If one wanted to understand everything they would have to live forever.
If you insist on using your daddy’s definitions as your argument one has to ask . . .is that the only way it could be defined?
Since thats your only argument you are merely believing what you think your daddy told you. We know that’s NOT science. What if somebody’s daddy believed the world was flat? Would you accept that as science?
How bout a real argument?
These threads get so long because DREMT has nothing truthful to say.
And still thinks the Moon rotates on an external axis.
Orbits are not rotations.
That is something useful to point out.
The threads get so long because you people simply cannot stop responding to me.
On the one hand, Flop presumably showed that that an object can rotate about an external axis in an elliptical pattern.
On the other hand, Flop’s trick broke isometry as it was an elliptical pattern.
So Flop showed that if rotations break isometry they can rotate on a non-circular ellipse.
You can’t make this up.
***
Graham D. Warner’s latest gimmick reminds me of this:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/8/1786532/-Cartoon-You-made-me-become-a-Nazi
Little Willy, you are making it up. Isometry is broken with rotation in an elliptical pattern because the rotation is not in a circle, so the distance from the origin is changing. Obviously.
Your sophistry comes in when you introduce a concept (isometry) which adds nothing new to the discussion. It had already been argued that rotations had to be circular, by definition. Someone had already made that point before you introduced your isometry argument. So, what new point were you adding!? Absolutely none! Saying "isometry cannot be broken with rotations" is literally the same point as saying that "rotations must be circular". All it adds is a layer of obfuscation, which allowed you to falsely accuse Ftop_t of trying some kind of "trick", or attempt to deceive, when he’s a perfectly honest, straight-up kind of commenter.
If rotation occurs in an elliptical pattern, then obviously isometry is broken. It’s no more meaningful for you to say that than it is to say, "rotation occurring in an elliptical pattern is not allowed because rotations must be in a circle". Yet you act like there’s some kind of deception going on, like Ftop_t was somehow secretly breaking this "isometry" rule whilst making it appear as if he wasn’t!
There was never any deception. Ftop_t simply showed that Desmos allowed rotations to occur in an elliptical pattern. You can whinge and cry all you like that "rotations must occur in a circular pattern"…not according to Desmos.
Graham D. Warner asserts that Flop showed how rotation can occur in a non-circular elliptical pattern.
Graham D. Warner accepts that rotations can’t occur in a non-circular elliptical pattern, for that’d break isometry.
Something‘s got
togive.“There was never any deception. Ftop_t simply showed that Desmos allowed rotations to occur in an elliptical pattern.”
False. He simply declared this motion was a ‘rotation’.
And why should he be believed?
Little Willy…I don’t ultimately care, either way, as the “Non-Spinner” argument does not depend on “orbits are rotations”, in any case. For what it’s worth, it seems the Desmos programmers disagree with the idea that “rotations must be circular”/“rotations must not break isometry”. Else they would not allow you to program a rotation in an elliptical pattern.
Nate…not false. We both saw him do it. He programmed Desmos to rotate an object in an elliptical pattern. You could even adjust the elliptical shape. That’s just what happened. There seems little point in you denying it.
“Natenot false. We both saw him do it. He programmed Desmos to rotate an object in an elliptical pattern. ”
False. How did he know it was a rotation?
All he did was program DESMOS to move a point along a trajectory that resembled an ellipse.
He called that motion a ‘rotation’. But this is inconsistent to the universally understood definition of ‘rotation’, which he himself regularly used!
Again, a program cannot disprove a definition!
When are you going to figure this out?
"All he did was program DESMOS to move a point along a trajectory that resembled an ellipse."
No, he moved a shape (not a point) in an ellipse such that the same side of the shape always faced the inside of the orbit.
"He called that motion a ‘rotation’. But this is inconsistent to the universally understood definition of ‘rotation’, which he himself regularly used!"
So call it something else. Who cares? Call it "orbit without spin". It just doesn’t matter, Nate.
"Again, a program cannot disprove a definition! When are you going to figure this out?"
I never said that it "disproves a definition". I’m saying that maybe not everyone takes every word of the definition as some completely inflexible holy scripture. Specifically, maybe they see that there’s some flexibility over "circular".
Exactly, Nate.
Imagine if Graham D. Warner had the flexibility to concede that an orbit isn’t defined as a pure rotation and does not imply anything about spin…
That’s right, Little Willy, an orbit does not imply anything about spin. I’m glad you agree. I can’t comment on “pure rotation”, I’m afraid, as I don’t know what you mean by it.
Did Graham D. Warner forget about his pet GIF? How can he forget about his Holy Madhavi? Or his (actually Flop’s) transmographer? Perhaps the CSA Truther’s contraption? How about the hundreds of times I said “pure rotation”?
Chances are that he’s just feigning ignorance.
Pure rotation is a motion that only involves a rotation. Rotation in general does not. Thus it’s possible to say that a thrower throws a hammer by rotating. It’s not pure rotation, but there’s obviously rotation involved. Same for orbits: they often imply some kind of rotation, but they can’t be pure rotations. Confer to all the times Bob said why, which now Graham accepts.
Progress!
Still none the wiser. Just Little Willy being his usual unintelligible self, whilst trying to pretend bob hasn’t been wrong for half a decade. He’s just t-word-ing.
And so Graham D. Warner is obviously playing dumb. According to Holy Madhavi, there are three types of motion. Which are they?
While he finds back his copy, astute readers may wonder if he has the flexibility to understand what he agreed upon when he said he agreed with the fact that an orbit doesn’t imply anything regarding an object’s spin –
An object’s orbit does not imply that it spins. It doesn’t imply that it does not spin either. Describing an orbit has NOTHING to do with the fact whether it spins or not.
Two reasons why Graham D. Warner’s quiz over his pet GIF means so little.
Rotation, translation, and general plane motion. So what? Just get to the point, if you have one.
“An object’s orbit does not imply that it spins. It doesn’t imply that it does not spin either. Describing an orbit has NOTHING to do with the fact whether it spins or not”
Sure. And, ultimately, everyone has an idea of what an orbit, without spin, looks like. To a “Spinner”, it’s the MOTR, and to a “Non-Spinner”, it’s the MOTL.
> Rotation, translation, and general plane motion. So what? Just get to the point, if you have one.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner isn’t flexible enough to understand how rotation and translation are opposed to general plane motion.
As suspected – Little Willy has no point.
“So call it something else. Who cares? Call it “orbit without spin”. It just doesnt matter, Nate.”
Well you cared enough to push the argument for a week in this latest instance.
Hopefully we will never again hear you declaring that an elliptical orbit IS a rotation.
Actually, I pushed nothing. You guys brought it up. I barely even wanted to discuss it, but you wouldn’t let it lie.
Actually, I pushed nothing. You guys brought it up. I barely even wanted to”
Again with weird notion that others forced you to participate!
Its like you don’t have any free will..
If you say so, Nate. Will that be eternally all?
As suspected, Graham D. Warner will ignore why the very idea of general plane motion DESTROYS the dilemma he offers with his pet GIF.
It doesn’t. You’re confused, as usual.
Graham D. Warner once again ignores that he offers only two solutions to his pet riddle: a pure rotation, and a pure translation.
What if we could describe his pet GIF using general plane motion, and how many possible solutions would there be?
The solutions to the GIF are:
MOTL
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
MOTR
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, in opposite directions.
b) Translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Can Little Willy tell me which one of those descriptions is in the general plane motion category?
Astute readers will note that when Graham D. Warner speaks of rotations “about an external axis” or “about an internal axis,” he’s referring to pure rotation, just like here, after the 5th minute:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CBBVGRpQLw
His insistence on pure rotation led him to an impasse recently with Flop’s trick, after which he suggested that we relax our definition of rotation. That was the bailey moment of his usual motte-and-bailey. And now he’s back into his motte, with a more “rigid” definition.
At no point does he consider that we could describe his pet GIF in terms of general motion. As Graham D. Warner completely forgot what the CSA Truther tried to show.
The answer to my question was MOTL b). Shows Little Willy is clueless, but we knew that already.
Graham D. Warner admitted many times that both descriptions were equivalent (i.e. he offers a false dilemma), and he also recently admitted that orbit and spin were independent (i.e. the motion of the Moon around the Earth isn’t what makes it change direction), but it’s not like consistency was his strongest suit.
And we haven’t touched infinitesimals yet, where rotation and translation are both commutative, which means that that both concepts are ultimately interchangeable.
If Little Willy has any alternative to the a) and b) descriptions, let him name it. Time for him to put up, or shut up.
Graham D. Warner still couldn’t find the CSA Truther’s demonstration himself?
Bummer.
Let’s do simple: (1) for half a circle, and (2) for the other half.
What do I win?
You don’t win anything until you write something coherent. What is 1) and 2)?
Graham D. Warner can’t even admit that he’s created another death thread using a misplaced comment.
A comment about translation, actually, in which he denied that translation required an axis and kept showing why he’s the undergraduate here (with honors!) while Bob actually taught.
It’d be fun to see how Graham represents a translation without any coordinate system or even direction! It’s not impossible, mind you, astute reader. Just harder to do physics.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1687530
Little Willy was unable to put up, but still has not shut up.
Re a coordinate system, the reference frame is inertial, with the origin passing through the hand of the person swinging the ball on a string. Really astute readers would have noted that I mentioned a reference frame many times. Nobody else bothered.
Ah well.
Looks like Graham D. Warner can’t even recognize that (1) refers to his “a)” and (2) to his “b).” I mean, he offered the two choices (with bad notation!) for years now. It’s really hard for him to keep track of what’s being discussed.
So, one solution is to describe the first half of the path using his first description, and the other half using his second description.
Another solution would be to describe the first and the third quarters of the path using his first description, and the second and the fourth quarters using the second description.
Astute readers might already notice that there are many other solutions. An infinity, in fact.
Equivalence is a strong concept.
So your suggestion is to describe the MOTL as spinning for half of its orbit, and not the other half. Then you wonder why people refuse to take you seriously.
> So your suggestion is to describe
Watch Graham D. Warner move the goalpost in slow motion. Pun intended.
He said there was only two descriptions possible. I showed him that one could find an infinity of them. Will he finally accept that he posits a false dilemma?
Perhaps he’ll have to wait until we tell him that, even if there was only two descriptions possible, one does not simply impose a dilemma using two equivalent statements. Who knows?
It is a dilemma, assuming you want to actually get to the bottom of whether the moon spins or not. Of course, if you do not want to do so, that is fine. We can just accept that the moon both spins and does not spin.
Look.
Graham D. Warner has to choose:
(a) 4 = 1 + 3
or
(b) 4 = 3 + 1
He HAS to choose.
This is so silly.
If you say so, Little Willy. Others seem keen to get to the bottom of whether or not the moon spins.
Perhaps one day Graham D. Warner will realize that the scientific establishment believes that the Moon spins not because of how they understand rotation and translation but because it coheres with the laws of physics. It’s not the descriptions that matter here, but the counterfactual that goes with it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
This counterfactual isn’t resolved by geometry alone.
His pet GIF is the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
So yeah – Graham D. Warner is using a GIF showing why the Moon spins to argue that it does not spin!
Enough for now. Let him digest the part about an infinity of alternative descriptions. It might be useful for future reference.
I already explained, elsewhere, that the issue is not resolved by kinematic descriptions:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1685849
Little Willy is miles behind, as usual.
Graham D. Warner still doesn’t get the very first comment I made years ago: at best he could say that they’re equivalent models. All he does is to state an equivalence. What else does he expect?
There are two problems that would face him were he as serious as he pretends to be. The first would be to produce a model. The second would be to revise physics so that his “ball on string” model or orbits works for our actual laws of physics. He dodges the first problem by various ways to run the clock. He dodges the first problem by trying to make it all about rotation and translation.
There’s nothing else behind Graham D. Warner’s masquerade.
You have never been able to understand, and never will…and that’s OK with me.
And so Graham D. Warner returns to gaslighting.
The most beautiful irony is that my online character is the guy who came up with the thought experiment in the first place to establish what is called the inscrutability of reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inscrutability_of_reference
At best Graham D. Warner will one day produce a model of the Moon-Earth system in which the Moon does not spin.
As for his other silly point, he still does not get that equivalence implies that the two versions are OK and that if there’s one axis in one version and another axis in the other version, then we really really really really have two axes. Besides the fact that the spin axis of the Moon is not even the polar axis, it goes without saying.
There has never been any dilemma. The only reason why we prefer to consider that the Moon spins is, because physics.
If you say so, Little Willy. Will that be eternally all?
Actually, I will just refute this “argument”.
By your logic, since in one description the MOTL is not rotating about an internal axis, and in the other description the MOTL is not rotating about an external axis, then we can say the MOTL has zero axes of rotation!
Little Willy never thinks thing through.
> since in one description the MOTL is not rotating about an internal axis, and in the other description the MOTL is not rotating about an external axis, then we can say the MOTL has zero axes of rotation!
Graham D. Warner always comes back with this kind of silliness.
Why should we substract one model from another equivalent one? In fact, what algebraic law should we use to do that?
It is your logic that is silly, as I just showed. Sorry you were not able to follow it. Par for the course, I guess.
Let’s apply Graham D. Warner algebra’s rule:
(M) 1 + 3 = 2 + 2
Let’s replace:
(M1) 2 + 2 = 2 + 2
See, no more 1’s and 3’s!
Graham D. Warner is a genius.
“Why should we substract one model from another equivalent one?”
I didn’t. I added zero from one of the descriptions, and zero from the other description, to get zero overall.
By adding two zeros, Graham D. Warner can subtract.
Pure genius.
Let’s apply his “logic” – he can’t believe that an external rotation equals an internal rotation plus a translation (both rotations in the same direction), for if he did the rotations would disappear!
No, Little Willy. I’m not subtracting. I’m adding two zeroes, to get zero.
Each description contains one instance of "rotation around an axis" and one instance of "no rotation around an axis", e.g. description a) has rotation around an external axis but no rotation around an internal axis.
You are adding together the instances of "rotation" and claiming that it should mean the MOTL has two axes of rotation. I am copying your logic exactly, only I’m adding together the instances of "no rotation" to claim it should mean the MOTL has no axes of rotation. Thus showing how absurd your logic is.
I didn’t even need to do that, though – self-evidently your argument was ridiculous – but I found my refutation quite entertaining, so thought I’d post anyway…
…and to think, this is what you’ve meant all those times you’ve been banging on about equivalency. You actually believe it makes sense to claim there are two axes of rotation for the MOTL, or to say that the MOTL is spinning for half an orbit, but not for the other half (your alternative to the a) and b) descriptions, equally funny). These are the arguments you’ve been keeping to yourself, until now.
I can see why.
> Im adding two zeroes, to get zero.
Wow.
Does Graham D. Warner really believe that he can destroy an equivalence by adding zeroes?
Let’s try it.
2 + 2 = 1 + 3
(2 + 2) x 0 = (1 + 3) x 0
0 = 0
Damn. Failed again.
So if we believe that 2 plus 2 equals 1 plus 3, we must believe that everything equals zero!
Pure genius.
***
> You are adding together the instances of “rotation”
Graham D. Warner says the darnedest things.
The equivalence between A and B does not mean I have A x B, A + B, A – C, or whatever. It just means I can replace one with the other. Not add them!
And astute readers ought to note: I replace them as a whole. Not just some part of it.
Graham D. Warner pulled the same kind of stunts with the green plates, with the energy balance model. He also did the same with his silly Objectively Real Model or whatever in another part of the Moon rigmarole.
This is getting sillier and sillier.
“Does Graham D. Warner really believe that he can destroy an equivalence by adding zeroes?”
Straw man. I’m not trying to “destroy an equivalence”. The a) and b) descriptions are equivalent. What I am destroying is your argument that because the a) and b) descriptions are equivalent, you can take an axis from one, and an axis from the other, and claim that there are two axes of rotation for the MOTL!
Your argument is refuted…so, typically, this is where you go absolutely berserk…
> What I am destroying is your argument that because the a) and b) descriptions are equivalent, you can take an axis from one, and an axis from the other, and claim that there are two axes of rotation for the MOTL
Talk about strawmen.
Graham D. Warner is a genius.
You said:
“As for his other silly point, he still does not get that equivalence implies that the two versions are OK and that if there’s one axis in one version and another axis in the other version, then we really really really really have two axes.”
Seems like you were arguing exactly what I said. If not, try to express yourself a bit more clearly, next time. I’m done with you for the day, I have one more response I can make today and I’m saving that for Nate, if he responds. You are such a waste of my time.
> Seems like
Seems like after all these years Graham D. Warner still struggles over the notion of equivalence!
Take A and B. Let A == B. Whenever you have A, you can replace it with B. And vice versa. If A contains one rotation, and B contains a different rotation, how many rotations do we have in total?
It’s really not that complex.
No wonder Graham D. Warner keeps being schooled by Bob!
Typical Little Willy. Falsely accuse me of misrepresenting him, then repeats the refuted argument.
The MOTL is not rotating about two different axes. bob has been wrong about that for years, and so is not in a position to teach anyone. No amount of dribbling on about “the concept of equivalence” will ever change that.
Get over it. Your hero was wrong.
Typical Graham D. Warner. Gets caught misrepresenting me. Waves his arms to offer another bogus “argument.” Doubles down.
While we let him recount how many “rotation” there is in “an external rotation equals an internal rotation and a translation in the same direction” (how many clues does he need), astute readers might wonder where GR’s solution fits in his false dilemma. A solution that rests on a pure motion, to boot!
Or the CSA Truther’s, for that matter.
Pure genius.
“Two axes of rotation.”
I said orbital axis. YOU have consistently said an orbit is a rotation!
Synchronous rotation is a misnomer”
Again you declare Astronomy’s terminology wrong. Between you and Astronomy there is no uncertainty about which one knows what they are talking about!
They mean that the rotation is synchronous with the orbit. Makes perfect sense!
You are a liar and a troll.
The MOTL is not rotating about two different axes.
Get over it. Your hero was wrong.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Spent years on a false dilemma. Couldn’t even see that his own CSA Truther refuted it. Never realized that GR himself refuted it, let alone why.
Still can’t admit that he presumes pure transformations. Still can’t admit that he misinterpreted the notion of equivalence. Still can’t admit that he has the kinematics of twirling a ball on string completely wrong.
What will it be when he’ll have to admit that the hammer throw completely DESTROYS his silly idea that there’s only one axis of rotation? Heck, what will it be when he’ll have to admit that dynamic systems are not captured by pure transformations at all?
Lie and bait away, Little Willy.
The MOTL is not rotating about two different axes.
Get over it. Your hero was wrong.
Graham D. Warner is tilting.
He and his fellowship spent years goading and baiting Binny. He has no business here. He still can’t keep another of his promises to leave the blog.
Astute readers might wonder: how many axes under GR’s and the CSA Truther’s interpretations?
I’m cool as a cucumber, Little Willy.
Gordon would have it that there are zero axes of rotation, the CSAItruth guys would no doubt go for one axis. Nobody is silly enough to think there are two axes except Little Willy, bob and Ball4. Even Nate knows that’s wrong, he’s just too shy to say so. Doesn’t want to throw you guys under the bus.
You three have been wrong for years. Oh well. Not my problem.
And I have kept every word of what I said. I said I would leave when you all stop responding to me/mentioning me. Unbelievably, I’m still here because you’re all just unable to let me go! It’s quite touching, in a way.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting. Still, one out of two is not that bad. If GR has *zero* axis, then why does Graham keep saying there is one axis?
Perhaps there is no such answer to his silly false dilemma.
And astute readers ought to ask – why does he always forget about the two axes solution?
The a) and b) descriptions are simply the valid kinematic descriptions for the MOTL and MOTR. That’s why you’ll have seen that recently Tim agreed, listing the options for the MOTL, wrt an inertial reference frame, as being what I’ve said they’ve been for years. He basically repeated the a) and b) descriptions, in his own words. Funnily enough, you didn’t give Tim the grief that you’re giving me.
Gordon’s description doesn’t adhere to standard kinematics. He calls the movement of the MOTL translation in a circle without rotation about an internal axis, but that is not how it’s defined in the textbooks.
Clint R would say that kinematics doesn’t apply to orbits, in any case. I think that it has its uses in getting across some important points.
The MOTL is not rotating about two different axes. That’s just a mathematical, geometrical fact. If you say it’s rotating about an external axis, then it isn’t rotating about an internal axis. If you say it’s rotating about an internal axis, then it’s translating in a circle, and not rotating about an external axis. It’s not rotating about an external axis and an internal axis. I’m sorry that you find that so hard to understand.
The MOTR, on the other hand, could have either zero axes of rotation, or two axes of rotation.
> are simply the valid kinematic descriptions
And now Graham D. Warner uses another concept he does not master. There’s nothing invalid in GR’s solution. There’s nothing invalid in the CSA Truther’s refutation too.
Validity, like motion, isn’t absolute. It depends upon the underlying choices we make. Graham D. Warner does not even realize that his silly dilemma makes arbitrary choices.
Still, a genius.
It’s all insinuation with Little Willy. He never really makes clear what his point is. I think that’s so he can make it look like he has something to say when he doesn’t, really. As long as it reads like it’s some kind of criticism for something or other, he’s happy. His “astute readers” must be very confused, though, always waiting for him to clarify what he’s actually on about.
It’s all empty assertions with Graham D. Warner.
Kinematics does not forbid anyone to consider GR’s solution as valid. All one needs is to make the presuppositions explicit. In this case, it’s a circular space. As for the CSA Truther, he clearly showed how to use two rotations to mimick the Moon. So once again Graham D. Warner failed to get the hint.
Both models are interesting in their own right. Even the idea that an orbit is a rotation can be fruitful. It compels us to ask ourselves: how is gravity supposed to turn the Moon around herself?
This is the point Graham D. Warner keeps evading with his pet GIF and his balls on strings. He can’t win on physics. Has to win something. Poor him. Trying to drag things down again instead of washing his hands and going away.
Astute readers might ask themselves – as he yet figured out that in a dynamic system there are no fixed point, which means that the usual notions of pure transformations don’t really hold?
“As for the CSA Truther, he clearly showed how to use two rotations to mimick the Moon.”
No, he did not (and that’s the only thing worth dignifying with a response).
> No, he did not
Graham D. Warner has a knack to goad and deny and bait and play dumb and gaslight and whine just make people do all the work for him:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw?si=pfkMvbJ75kD1nCSo&t=162
Meanwhile, astute readers might wonder how many barycenters there are in the solar system that are relevant to the Earth.
He did not show how to mimic the motion of the moon with two rotations. It’s unclear why you even think he did.
Graham D. Warner obviously hasn’t clicked on the link.
Why bother?
Yes, I clicked on the link. I’ve watched that part of the video many times before.
There’s absolutely nothing in the video that would lead any rational human being to conclude that the motion of the moon can be mimicked by two rotations – i.e. rotation about both an external and an internal axis. After all, the entire purpose of the video is to attempt to show that the moon is not rotating about an internal axis.
He takes the model moon off the device and translates it in a circle whilst rotating it about an internal axis with his fingers, and notes that the moon "appears" (his word) to be rotating (about an internal axis) whilst moving like our moon. Obviously, he’s separated it from the device, so it’s no longer rotating about an external axis.
The device rotates the model moon about an external axis as its "base motion". So, in the first experiment, it’s rotating the model moon about an internal axis once for every rotation about an external axis, in the same direction as the external axis rotation. In the second experiment, it’s only rotating about an external axis. No rotation about an internal axis. In the third experiment, it’s rotating about an internal axis in the opposite direction to the rotation about an external axis, once per external axis rotation.
His lifting it off the device in the second experiment is pretty straightforward overall confirmation of the point that there is only one axis of rotation for motion like our moon. It’s either translating in a circle with rotation about an internal axis (when it’s off the device and he’s moving it with his fingers) or it’s rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis when on the device.
> Theres absolutely nothing in the video that would lead any rational human being to conclude that the motion of the moon can be mimicked by two rotations
Pure denial on top of pure denial.
Graham D. Warner obviously forgets the bit where the CSA Truther unplugs the Moon from its gimmick and rotates it around the Earth. And he also forgets that the Earth would need to rotate too.
One rotation plus one rotation equals two rotations.
The CSA Truther reveals his gimmick when he says:
Not only this is false (it has not) but that’s where the CSA Truther confuses, as Graham D. Warner does, orbit and rotation!
Astute readers might wonder if Graham D. Warner really believes that the Moon always hover the same side of the Earth, like the CSA Truther demonstrated.
"Graham D. Warner obviously forgets the bit where the CSA Truther unplugs the Moon from its gimmick and rotates it around the Earth. And he also forgets that the Earth would need to rotate too."
You obviously didn’t read my comment, where I mention that he unplugs the moon from the device. Why bother?
Also…the Earth rotates on its own axis, Little Willy. That doesn’t count as a rotation of the moon, about either an external or an internal axis. The Earth is a separate body to the moon. Its rotation is not counted as part of the moon’s rotation, about either an external or internal axis. You’re hopelessly confused, as usual.
> That doesnt count as a rotation of the moon
Graham D. Warner cranks up his denial to 11.
In the Moon-Earth system, the Earth doesn’t count, now. The CSA Truther makes the rotation of the Moon depend on the motion of Earth, but the Earth doesn’t count.
Which then means that the person moving Graham’s balls on his silly strings doesn’t matter. The hammer thrower doesn’t count, only the hammer counts.
I think I had enough of Graham D. Warner’s gaslighting for one day.
That’s right, Little Willy, the hammer thrower doesn’t count as an axis of rotation for the hammer. Both the hammer and the thrower are instead rotating about one single, shared axis, located at the barycentre between them. This is unlike the Earth and moon scenario in that the Earth is also spinning, as well as rotating about that one single, shared axis, located at the barycentre between the Earth and the moon.
Re the CSAItruth demo…the Earth spins along with the arm that turns the moon. So, with the "moon spin" motor not engaged, but the arm turning the moon, the Earth will spin at the same rate as the moon rotates around the external axis. But, that doesn’t mean that there are two axes of rotation for the moon! There is only one axis of rotation for the model moon, external to it…located at the model Earth.
Then, when the "moon spin" motor is engaged, you get your two axes of rotation (in experiment one and three).
And so according to Graham D. Warner, the thrower does not matter. Who cares what the thrower does? No wonder he always talks about balls and strings and stops there!
Astute readers might wonder then why he spent a few weeks if not months on the ultimate objectivity or the objective materiality of the CSA Truther’s contraption. (Paraphrasing, of course: he kept using another silly acronym no one cares about.) Recall that the contraption had two motors, the important motor being underneath the Earth. It’s the one that implemented the “normal orbital motion [sic.]” of the Moon.
And then return to the important theorem:
[GDWT] [H]e’s separated it from the device, so it’s no longer rotating about an external axis.
So the Earth does not matter, but the clock arm does. The thrower does not matter, but the metal chain does. The ball twirler does not matter, but the string does.
Words of wisdom. Words of wisdom.
Now, what about Graham D. Warner’s pet GIF – what attaches the objects of the GIF together, again?
Astute readers who are interested in what I actually said and meant, can just read my comments. Said readers should already know not to trust Little Willy when he writes his own version of what I said and meant.
Astute readers already know that to falsely claim “help! I’m being misrepresented!” is part of Graham D. Warner’s elaborated defense mechanism.
Here’s a syllogism:
(P1) Graham D. Warner said that, once the CSA Truther disconnected the Moon from his contraption, it was no longer rotating about an external axis.
(P2) GIFs don’t materially connect the objects they represent.
(C) The GIF can’t represent an external rotation.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner should correct his first premise. Astute readers already know it’s unsound.
The GIF could be either a) or b), precisely because we do not and cannot know what the mechanism is. It’s just an animation. It could be that there’s some kind of physical connection between the two objects, like a string, or an arm, or a chain, or gravity…or it could be that there’s just some invisible hand moving the one object around the other.
> The GIF could be either a) or b), precisely because we do not and cannot know what the mechanism is.
If we cannot know what the mechanism is, then we can’t exclude other possibilities than his “a)” and “b).” And we already saw an infinity of them.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner should have sticked to stipulating that a pure external rotation equals an internal rotation plus a translation, both rotations being in the same direction.
Besides, does he really know by which mechanism the CSA Truther moved the Moon around? Considering how he analyzes the hammer throw, astute readers might dispute that knowledge. Any physiotherapist would tell you that the CSA Truther rotated both his arm and his hand.
“He takes the model moon off the device and translates it in a circle whilst rotating it about an internal axis with his fingers, and notes that the moon “appears” (his word) to be rotating (about an internal axis) whilst moving like our moon. Obviously, hes separated it from the device, so its no longer rotating about an external axis.”
When he takes it off the arm, and moves it exactly as it had been moving, he declares it rotating!
But back on the arm, doing the same motion, it ceases to “be rotating a single degree”!
This is the part of the video where the dude proves he’s insane. And yet DREMT thinks it is great!
DREMT declares “The device rotates the model moon about an external axis as its “base motion”.”
No! Not according to the dude. He says it is “not rotating a single degree” when on the arm! It is only orbiting.
He never equates orbiting with rotating, thus his entire point is to claim that the Moon is not rotating!
I think it best to just ignore Little Willy’s response. I just refuted another one of his arguments only for him not to accept it, and instead recycle some other points that have already been discussed. This will just continue repeating indefinitely if I let it.
Nate explodes passionately and breathlessly onto the scene, completely out of nowhere, with:
"No! Not according to the dude. He says it is “not rotating a single degree” when on the arm!"
He means "about an internal axis", Nate. The device has "rotation about an external axis" as its "base motion". He simply calls that "normal orbital motion". It’s probably less confusing that way…but no matter what we do to try and make things clearer, someone will arrive to obfuscate…
“He means “about an internal axis”, Nate. The device has “rotation about an external axis” as its “base motion”. He simply calls that “normal orbital motion””
Nope! He never states that.
He is absolutely clear that the Moon is not rotating. Period. Except when the guy rotates by hand.
Since I understand what he means by what he says when he takes the model moon off the device, and Nate doesn’t, you’d think Nate would listen to me. When somebody is using the terms "orbital motion" and "rotate", by the latter they obviously mean "rotate about an internal axis", or "spin". That should go without saying. What else would he mean!?
As to whether he means "normal orbital motion" is "rotation about an external axis", it doesn’t even really matter. The "base motion" for his device is "rotation about an external axis", whether he thinks of it that way, or not.
By the way, down-thread Nate is avoiding these questions:
1) Do you think our moon has two axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame? Yes or no?
2) Do you think a ball on a string has two axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame? Yes or no?
His refusal to answer makes it clear that his response would be "no" to both. If he honestly thought "yes", he would be quick to let me know, since he’d be backing up his fellow team members. Nate is honest enough not to lie and answer "yes" when he knows the correct answer is "no", but not quite honest enough to just actually answer "no", definitively. Astute readers will take any continued refusal to answer as a "no" to both.
It’s always best for Graham D. Warner to ignore what is being said. First, because he can’t really counter anything that is being said. Second, ignorance is truly what he knows best.
When interpreting his contraption, the CSA Truther presumes that an internal rotation happens when a motor is active. Motor off equals no internal rotation.
Astute readers might wonder how two rotations can cancel out.
Little Willy baits me to counter his last comment. OK then:
"If we cannot know what the mechanism is, then we can’t exclude other possibilities than his “a)” and “b).” And we already saw an infinity of them."
We saw an infinity of very silly possibilities in which the MOTL was spinning for a portion of its orbit, and not spinning for another portion of its orbit. Since nobody rational would take those possibilities seriously in this discussion, we can once again put Little Willy’s ludicrous argument to bed.
"Besides, does he really know by which mechanism the CSA Truther moved the Moon around? Considering how he analyzes the hammer throw, astute readers might dispute that knowledge. Any physiotherapist would tell you that the CSA Truther rotated both his arm and his hand."
We’re going to start trying to analyse the motion of individual bones in the hand and arm next, are we!? Deary me. When he takes the moon off the device, and moves it like the MOTL, he’s translating it in a circle whilst rotating it about an internal axis. He’s not rotating it about an external axis, because his arm isn’t very small and attached to the model Earth like the model Earth was his shoulder!
[I’m just having a laugh at your expense. Please try not to over-analyse my every word]
Graham D. Warner pretends that he responds to comments, but in the end he never really does. As if waving his arms could hypnotize astute readers or something. Repeating his incredulity regarding infinite counterexamples to his false dilemma does not counter anything. Neither does urning his lack of analysis of the CSA Truther’s trickery into a silly slippery slope.
The fact of the matter is that Graham D. Warner is just being a little hypocritical when he accepts that his pet GIF is “just an animation” whereas the CSA Truther’s contraption’s materiality matters a lot to him. All this because he thinks someone, somewhere disputes that an external rotation equals an internal rotation with a translation, both rotations in the same direction. In fact, everything he holds rests on that rudimentary fact. How he can conclude anything regarding the motion of the Moon in the Moon-Earth system is left as an exercise of psychology to astute readers.
“Since I understand what he means”
Because you can read minds.
Whereas I simply take his statements for what he meant to say.
Sorry that he doesn’t see things the way you do.
If you or Nate should ever finally, officially acknowledge that a ball on a string is not rotating about two different axes, then within a few additional questions and comments I can get you to understanding why the moon does not spin (as long as you cooperate and actually attempt to comprehend).
I’m away on holiday next week, so will probably only be responding once per day. Try not to get withdrawal symptoms. I know how desperately you both crave interacting with me.
If Graham D. Warner could accept that the equivalence between an external rotation and an internal rotation with a translation (both rotations in the same direction) involves at least two axes of rotation, that’d be great.
If he could acknowledge that he already accepts that general plane notion can model any motion, including pure translation and pure rotation, that’d be greater still.
But if he could also recognize that this equivalence has little to do with modeling the motion of actual Moon-Earth system, which requires general plane motion, now that’d be very sweet.
Astute readers might be willing to wait a bit until he admits that the CSA Truther indeed turns the Earth to make the Moon orbits and spins, a motion he confusedly calls the “normal orbital motion.”
Little Willy demonstrates his confusion with all four paragraphs, and that he hasn’t (and will never) learn a thing. That doesn’t bother or surprise me.
I’m afraid I’m going to need him, or Nate, to concede that wrt an inertial reference frame, a ball on a string is not rotating about two different axes, in order to continue.
I’ll wait and see if they are capable of humility.
Graham D. Warner is so cute when he’s gaslighting.
Astute readers might wonder why the Man on the Moon does not appear in that lovely GIF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Animation_of_Moon_orbit_around_Earth_-_Polar_view.gif
Could it because spin and orbit were independent?
Little Willy agrees with my point 4). Excellent. We need agreement on the two axes thing to proceed, though. Now off on holiday, so down to one (maybe two) responses per day from now on.
Graham D. Warner finally agrees with everybody else that the CSA Truther’s “normal orbital motion” was ridiculous. Orbit has nothing to do with spin.
Progress.
Astute readers might wonder why he still disputes that the thrower doesn’t matter:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2022.853536/full
A complex orbit produced by a series of rotations and translations.
Fancy that.
“Normal orbital motion” is, of course, fine. No problem with “orbit” and “spin” being independent. That’s my point 4), after all.
The thrower rotates about the barycentre, and the barycentre translates, so that all checks out.
No problems.
Just patiently waiting for Little Willy or Nate to concede the point about two axes.
“and comments I can get you to understanding why the moon does not spin (as long as you cooperate and actually attempt to comprehend).”
Nah. Never going to happen. The BOS is always an excuse to endlessly evade the lunar spin.
There is no sound fact-based argument to account for the plainly observable tilted axis of the Moon’s spin.
And DREMT knows it.
Answer the questions, Nate. I already know your answer is “no”, to both, meaning you agree that bob, Ball4 and Little Willy have been wrong for years, but you could at least have the courtesy to confirm that.
There’s an obvious problem with the CSA Truther’s “Normal orbital motion,” of course, fine. For he obviously has to rotate his arm and wrist to make the Moon spin as she orbits the Earth.
Which makes it hard to believe that orbit and spin are independent in the “Absolutely Fantastic Reality” of the contraption once the trick is revealed. Graham D. Warner can still believe that his hand and wrist are disconnected, of course. Of course.
It’s “normal orbital motion” when the model moon is on the device, and it swings around like the MOTL in one single, smooth motion.
“Normal orbital motion” is one single motion, and it’s like the MOTL according to “Non-Spinners”, and like the MOTR according to “Spinners”. “Spin” is motion around the object’s own internal axis, and is separate and independent of the “normal orbital motion”.
No need to obfuscate, it’s as simple as that.
Graham D. Warner is gaslighting again.
The “normal orbital motion” of the Moon is when it orbits the Earth the way it does normally. It should have nothing to do with how the CSA Truther decides to implement that motion. But then he wants to show that the Moon turns on herself without need to spin…
Since he has no physical basis to support his claim that the Moon does not spin, the CSA Truther tries to argue that it cannot spin. How can he succeed if orbit and spin are truly independent?
The plot thickens. Astute readers should grab popcorn.
I’m not gaslighting. It really is as simple as I explained. I have said, over the course of this discussion, absolutely everything that you need to know to fully understand the CSAItruth video. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
One piece of advice I would give you is to stop over-thinking things. Your mind tends to wander off in strange directions, you don’t explain yourself very well, so it becomes nigh on impossible to keep track of what sort of tangent you’ve gone off on. I’ve really tried to help you over the last few years, not that you deserve it, but it seems we’re never going to get anywhere. Time is running out…
…maybe just concede the two axes thing, and we’ll take it from there.
“Its normal orbital motion when the model moon is on the device, and it swings around like the MOTL in one single, smooth motion.”
Which has nothing to do with our Moon, that plainly, observably, has an orbit, and independently, a rotation, that are two different motions that happen in DIFFERENT PLANES.
So no, these devices don’t help account for our moon’s motion. That is a fantasy.
And furthermore the narrator is absolutely sure tha his moon and our Moon have no rotation, and thus he is absolutely nuts!
So naturally DREMT finds him compelling.
“It should have nothing to do with how the CSA Truther decides to implement that motion.”
Exactly!
But the ‘truther’ insists that moving the Moon by hand results in it obtaining rotation that it did not have with identical motion on the arm.
As I said, he is nuts.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1687960
And so Graham D. Warner breaks his promise on his very first vacation day.
Second day, and it’s no big deal. Got a couple of hours I can waste.
Astute readers might wonder –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4HwEHF__js
How many axes of rotation?
Little Willy throws more crap against the wall.
All because he can’t accept bob has been wrong for half a decade, and that he’s been wrong himself for three years. The MOTL is not rotating about two different axes. If you can’t even agree with that, you’ll never get anywhere on this issue.
Graham D. Warner can’t log out.
All this because he can’t accept that his beloved CSA Truther’s “normal orbital motion” condemns the Moon to the same spot over the Earth for ever and ever.
I don’t need to “log out”. Your comments are harmless enough…if you choose to keep embarrassing yourself by saying silly things which demonstrate a total lack of understanding, that’s up to you. You can keep those comments coming indefinitely. I’ve made it clear that I’ll leave when you guys stop responding/mentioning me.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Astute readers may wonder – how can the CSA Truther prove that the Moon cannot spin if an external rotation is equal to an internal rotation with a translation (in the same direction)?
Oh, the video doesn’t settle the issue. It’s not even a very good video, although it has its uses. To get to what settles the issue, you know what you have to concede.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
It’s obvious that once we accept the equivalence between the two rotations involves two axes. It’s also obvious that it directly refutes the CSA Truther’s “proof” that the Moon can’t spin.
And the video is rather cool.
Sorry, Little Willy, the MOTL is not rotating about two different axes. It doesn’t matter how much you want to torture “the concept of equivalence”, it is not rotating about two different axes.
Concede that, to proceed.
It’s still a little sad that Graham D. Warner can’t enjoy vacations away from Roy’s.
However he spins his position (pun intended) he should be able to understand that one of his own points refutes the CSA Truther’s alleged “proof.”
Strange then that he sometimes asserts that the Moon cannot spin.
Througout the Csa truther video, when he states the Moon is not rotating, it is rotating wrt the inertial frame. And whenever he states it is rotating it is rotating wrt the rotating arm, and not wrt the inertial frame.
Thus he is consistent throughout that for him, lunar rotation means ‘rotation wrt a rotating frame of reference.’ A frame that is rotating with the arm, which is the radial line connecting Earth and Moon.
Using such a rotaing frame makes some sort of sense if one adopts the Earth centric pOV, because it explains how Earth bound observers see the Moon ‘not’ rotating.
But of course they are wrong.
Wrong, Nate. Wrt an inertial reference frame, the MOTL is not rotating about two different axes. From there, you should be able to understand that it depends on whether the “base motion” is “rotation about an external axis” or “translation in a circle”. That is what decides if movement like the MOTL involves “not spinning”, or “spinning”. Not a choice of reference frame. With the CSAItruth equipment, the “base motion” is chosen for you. It’s “rotation about an external axis”.
> Thus [CSA Truther] is consistent throughout
That’s one thing the CSA Truther has over Graham D. Warner, whom has already forgotten his theorem:
[GDWT] [H]e’s separated it from the device, so it’s no longer rotating about an external axis.
Unless an object is attached to a device, it cannot rotate around it!
At least according to this theorem.
I’ve been entirely consistent throughout. For the “base motion” to be “rotation about an external axis” there needs to be a physical connection between the external axis and the object. Be that a string, a chain, an arm, or gravity. Otherwise, the “base motion” will be “translation in a circle”.
> For the “base motion” to be “rotation about an external axis” there needs to be a physical connection between the external axis and the object.
Right after Graham D. Warner spent five years on a silly GIF, no less.
So here’s what can’t be a rotation anymore:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAhfZUZiwSE
Unless Graham D. Warner knows the “base motion” of the chalk is connected to the center of the circle, of course.
There is no problem with the GIF, as I already explained:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1688044
It has its place in all of this.
“Wrong, Nate. Wrt an inertial reference frame, the MOTL is not rotating about two different axes.”
Off topic. Not addressing my post at all!
Oh well!
“Not a choice of reference frame. With the CSAItruth equipment, the base motion is chosen for you. Its rotation about an external axis.”
Except the narrator NEVER states this!
He simply states that the moon is ‘not rotating’., when it clearly IS rotating wrt the inertial frame.
From this one can deduce that he means ‘not rotating wrt the rotating frame’!
Oh well!
It does directly address your comment, Nate. You’re aware I wrote other sentences? It starts with accepting that wrt an inertial reference frame there are not two axes of rotation for the MOTL. Once you’ve accepted that, you can hopefully understand that there are two options for describing the movement of the MOTL:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
They both apply wrt an inertial reference frame. So, actually, the choice of “base motion” is what decides whether something that moves like the MOTL is spinning or not. Not a choice of reference frame.
“From this one can deduce that he means ‘not rotating wrt the rotating frame’!”
That wouldn’t explain why he says the model moon is rotating (about an internal axis) when he detaches it from the device and moves it by hand like the MOTL.
What I am saying to you does explain it, however.
Not that it matters if the CSAItruth guy agrees with my way of looking at it, anyway. My way’s my way…you can either argue against what I’m saying or keep looking for excuses to avoid discussing it. Up to you.
Graham D. Warner still fails to amend his false dilemma. At the very least he ought to add:
[GSSG] Rotation about an external axis with a physical connection between the external axis and the object.
GSSG stands for Graham’s Silly Semantic Game.
Oh yes, sorry…I forgot to add:
c) an infinity of very silly options where the MOTL is considered to be spinning for part of its orbit but not the rest of it.
I think we can leave out c) from the adult discussion, though.
> an infinity of very silly options
Wait. The physical connection between the external axis and the object is not an option?
Graham D. Warner just can’t shoot straight.
Perhaps he ought to focus on his vacation time.
It goes so fast.
The presence or absence of the physical connection is what decides between a) and b). How do you get yourself so confused?
Just read through all the comments again, until you understand.
” Cassini was an astrologer, sorry. He got his ‘laws’ wrong, sorry. His ‘laws’ are easily debunked… ”
I just wanted to let people have a clear look at how Clint R and similar pseudo-science ‘specialists’ come out here.
” …, as you have seen. ”
Not one person has ever seen this on the blog. Just some poor pseudo-science written by people who wouldn’t be able to explain what Cassini discovered (and Newton understood), let alone what he did wrong.
No need to continue this ‘discussion’, as we can see.
Yes Bindi, you couldn’t “see” the clear example of a pencil in a cup. That’s because you don’t understand orbital motions and have no interest in reality.
Put a pencil in a cup. Lean the pencil to some angle from the vertical, say about 25°. Tape the pencil so it cannot move.
Now “orbit” the cup around the center of a table, always keep the cup handle facing the inside of the orbit. Notice the pencil points in different directions during the orbit. That means there is NO axial rotation. And that means Cassini’s Laws are debunked.
“Now ‘orbit’ the cup around the center of a table”
Whilst rotating about its center.
…Whilst rotating it about its center…
Clint R,
You are doing it wrong.
You have to hold the pencil so it is permanently aligned with one specific point.
If you do that you will see that the cup rotates relative to the pencil.
See, if you do experiments correctly, you get the correct results.
I repeat:
No need to continue this ‘discussion’, as we can see.
*
I have no interest in reviving for the umpteenth time the discussion on the lunar spin; I just wanted to show newbies or rare visitors the level of scientific knowledge that a little few people here have.
In my native tongue, it is not for nothing that they use to say:
” On reconnaît les crétins à leur besoin pathologique non seulement de toujours répondre de la même manière, mais surtout d'être toujours le dernier à répondre. “
Bindi likes to keep his cult beliefs alive by sneaking in jabs. Then, he “leaves the building” only to return later with another jab.
I’ve learned not to waste much time with the Spinners, as they clearly don’t have a clue about orbital motion. That’s why they can’t come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
They can’t even understand simple analogies like the ball-on-a-string, or the pencil-in-a-cup.
And, they can’t learn….
Clint R,
“That means there is NO axial rotation. And that means Cassinis Laws are debunked.”
Which one of Cassini’s three laws do you think you have debunked?
Sorry bob, but you can’t understand any of this.
Feel free to continue stalking me, however.
It makes Nate jealous….
Clint R,
You are all personal attacks with no science to back it up.
“Notice the pencil points in different directions during the orbit.”
That’s exactly what an object that is spinning does, note that it
is taped to the cup, that means the cup is rotating.
Welcome to the spinners club.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner.
Clint R,
You are all personal attacks with no science to back it up.
“Notice the pencil points in different directions during the orbit.”
That’s exactly what an object that is spinning does, note that it
is taped to the cup, that means the cup is rotating.
Welcome to the spinners club.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner!
“Tape the pencil so it cannot move.”
That is it. We have the answer. The moon is not a free body. It is actually attached to the earth by a large piece of Scotch tape.
All along, the guy is a comedian when people are accusing him of not understanding basic science. I thought my Festivus comment was at least amusing, but this one is a riot.
I thought the moon was “tidally locked”, Tim S. Or are you saying the expression should be “tidally free to move”?
An understanding of what tidally locked means would be useful.
Good job I know exactly what it means, then.
Tim S, your childish, asinine comment reveals your ignorance of science.
And don’t start whining about me insulting you. That’s NOT an insult. It’s reality. If reality insults you, that’s not my problem.
The tape has nothing to do with the demonstration. It simply holds the pencil in place as the cup is orbited. If you carefully orbit the cup, you don’t need the tape. The tape is really just to help children….
In orbital motion, if the orbiting object is also spinning, then its axis of spin always points in the same direction, at least for many, many orbits. Earth’s axis always points toward the North Star (Polaris). But,it is believed that the axis will complete one precession in about 26000 years.
The pencil-in-a-cup then demonstrates Moon has no axial rotation, as it’s impossible to orbit the cup and keep the pencil pointing in the same direction. One of Cassini’s mistakes was assigning an angle to Moon’s bogus axis of spin. That angle would precess once per orbit, proving Cassini wrong.
You won’t be able to understand any of this because you can’t think for yourself.
Prove me wrong.
An orbit is defined to be a path through space followed by an object that moves around another object.
If you ask a civilian to hold a coffee cup in their right hand and move it around their left fist, how will they do it?
Most will naturally hold the handle and keep it pointed in the same direction, and not to the middle.
This demonstrates Orbital motion is simply a translation.
And anyone trying to keep the handle pointed to the middle will find that they have to make an awkward extra effort to rotate the handle around the cup to keep it pointed toward the center.
Thus most will realize that such a motion requires Orbiting PLUS an extra motion: internal rotation.
> That’s NOT an insult. Its reality.
AQ should take note.
Nate, you remain confused by orbital motion.
When you move the cup with your hands, you are trying to replicate gravity. Gravity “steers”. If the body has no spin, then it keeps one side facing the inside of the orbit, like a ball-on-a-string, or Moon.
People get really serious about their moon confusion. No humor is allowed!
Now for the fun part. How do people explain the moon phases (currently a Waxing Gibbous) we see on earth? Does an observer on the moon see sun rises and sun sets? How does that happen?
Clint R
Why do you persist in being wrong?
“The pencil-in-a-cup then demonstrates Moon has no axial rotation, as its impossible to orbit the cup and keep the pencil pointing in the same direction. One of Cassinis mistakes was assigning an angle to Moons bogus axis of spin. That angle would precess once per orbit, proving Cassini wrong.”
It is not impossible, it just takes some hand eye coordination.
If the handle of the cup is facing the center of the orbit, it must change orientation to keep the handle facing the center, the only way it can do that is by rotating.
Sorry Tim S, but the “fun part” is you getting caught trying to fake a knowledge of this issue.
You got caught and now you’re trying to distract as cover for your incompetence.
Moon phases are accomplished by orbiting. This issue is about the fact that Moon does NOT spin.
The Moon has phases because the Moon is rotating.
Orbits have nothing to do with the orientation of the body orbiting.
The Sun rises and sets on the Moon because the Moon is rotating, not because the Moon is orbiting.
Fundamentally, a free body rotates about its center of mass. A car going around a corner is not free, but nonetheless center of mass affects which tires get more stress.
Any object that is free and orbiting the sun in ANY way is rotating if it experiences sunrise and sunset on its surface at a frequency greater than its orbit period. For that moon is about 13 sunrise and sunset events every orbit around the sun.
Simple!
"Orbits have nothing to do with the orientation of the body orbiting."
Your own "side" of the argument disagrees, bob. They think a body that is orbiting, and not spinning, always keeps one side oriented towards a distant star. So, orientation is, of course, involved.
Tim S, Moon does NOT “orbit” Sun. Moon orbits Earth.
Your incompetence is made even funnier by your pomposity.
Can you blow your own horn also?
So you are proposing the following: The moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun, but the moon is not orbiting the sun because it is orbiting the earth instead.
Got it!
I’m not sure what you’ve “got”, Tim S. But, it’s sure not a knowledge of science.
I am trying to be polite. Look up the concept of set theory. I will help with this. If the earth is orbiting the sun, then the moon MUST also orbit the sun. The path of its orbit making loops does not matter. People try to help you, and you resist.
Sorry TimS, but being ignorant is NOT being polite.
Orbital motion is a clearly defined motion in physics. The motion is the result of both linear momentum and gravity.
It has NOTHING to do with set theory!
What will you try next?
DREMT,
“They think a body that is orbiting, and not spinning, always keeps one side oriented towards a distant star. So, orientation is, of course, involved.”
You are putting them together again, wasn’t point 4 that orbits and rotations are independent?
Orientation is part of spinning not part of orbiting.
For those few who might be interested, I let Clint R trap himself with a logic problem that is not a science problem. No amount of science knowledge is needed. When people try to use detailed analysis, it becomes technical and open to argument. Fundamental scientific principles and basic logic cannot be argued.
Done!
Well TimS, if you’re admitting your trap failed, then you’ve finally stumbled into some reality.
That’s good.
"You are putting them together again, wasn’t point 4 that orbits and rotations are independent?"
"Orbit" and "spin" is independent, yes, bob. That’s why I’m not "putting them together".
DREMT,
“Your own “side” of the argument disagrees, bob. They think a body that is orbiting, and not spinning, always keeps one side oriented towards a distant star. So, orientation is, of course, involved.”
You could correct that to say, “They think a body that is not spinning, always keeps one side oriented towards a distant star.”
Because, as you say, orbiting and spinning are separate.
Orbiting has nothing to do with orientation.
Clint R,
“When you move the cup with your hands, you are trying to replicate gravity. Gravity steers. If the body has no spin, then it keeps one side facing the inside of the orbit, like a ball-on-a-string, or Moon.”
I remember you arguing that gravity can’t torque a body, and now you seem to have changed your mind, saying gravity can steer an object.
On or the other, it can’t be both.
Like I’ve told you before bob, this is WAY over your head.
You can’t understand the simple ball-on-a-string. The string (gravity) is not providing torque, it can’t. But it “steers” the ball along its orbit.
You can’t understand this, but at least you keep proving me right.
So continue stalking me. When you make enough of a goof, I’ll be glad to acknowledge your ignorance.
“Orbiting has nothing to do with orientation.“
As explained, and not rebutted, your own “side” disagrees.
So I am wondering what the people who actually landed on the moon, with people who all came home, have to say about this.
Are they in a “cult”?
https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/429/the-moons-orbit-and-rotation/
“An enduring myth about the Moon is that it doesn’t rotate. While it’s true that the Moon keeps the same face to us, this only happens because the Moon rotates at the same rate as its orbital motion, a special case of tidal locking called synchronous rotation.”
TimS, what you’re doing is called, in the vernacular used on this blog, “throwing crap against the wall, hoping something will stick”. You obviously know nothing about orbital motion. So you provide another “learning opportunity’.
Yes, it is a cult. And, as within any cult, beliefs are chosen over reality. That ain’t science. This Moon issue can be easily resolved, but people like you will not leave the cult. You’re unable to think for yourself.
If you were interested in reality and science, you would realize your cult has NOTHING. You’re relying on centuries old astrology. You don’t know anything about the subject, so you lazily swallow the cult nonsense. The viable model of “orbiting without spin” is a ball-on-a-string swung in a circle. One side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit. That’s what Moon does.
Your cult has no viable model of “orbiting without spin”. They’ve got NOTHING.
What crap will you throw against the wall next?
DREMT,
“As explained, and not rebutted, your own side disagrees.”
I have explained over and over again why you are wrong.
I don’t have a side, I present evidence.
You even agree that rotation and orbiting are independent.
So you can’t claim they are linked.
That’s why I’m not claiming they’re linked.
Clint R,
“Like Ive told you before bob, this is WAY over your head.”
Try an Astronomy textbook for starters, instead of insults.
In order to steer a car, you apply torque to the steering wheel.
Earth’s gravity applies a torque to the Moon, that’s why the Moon is slowly receding from the Earth.
Steer and torque are things you have a problem with, it don’t confront me.
I’m not insulting you, bob. I’m just bringing reality to you.
A steering wheel is a mechanical device. It has nothing to do with this issue. You’re just throwing crap at the wall, again.
Gravity can NOT supply torque to Moon. This has been explained numerous times.
And Moon receding from Earth has NOTHING to do with torque. You’ve been reading too many astronomy books which are too often based on astrology. Orbital motions are covered in the field of physics.
So continue stalking me, with your worthless crap. You’ve got NOTHING.
Clint R,
“Im not insulting you, bob. Im just bringing reality to you.”
It is insulting when you have the reality wrong.
“A steering wheel is a mechanical device. It has nothing to do with this issue. Youre just throwing crap at the wall, again.”
A steering wheel is something you apply torque to, which then causes the vehicle to change directions, rotate, or turn.
“Gravity can NOT supply torque to Moon. This has been explained numerous times.”
Explained wrongly, you even said it causes the Moon to turn, in order to make something turn requires torque.
“And Moon receding from Earth has NOTHING to do with torque. Youve been reading too many astronomy books which are too often based on astrology. Orbital motions are covered in the field of physics.”
It is caused by the torque the Moon puts on the Earth and vice versa. Astronomy is older than Physics, and has no relation to Astrology. It’s the oldest of the Natural Sciences.
“So continue stalking me, with your worthless crap. Youve got NOTHING.”
You are being schooled!
Keep proving me right, bob.
I can take it.
Clint R,
I haven’t played backwards day since kindergarten.
Oh wait, I didn’t go to kindergarten.
But you are a great player.
“Orbiting has nothing to do with orientation.
As explained, and not rebutted, your own side disagrees.”
One side thinks orientation must change to follow its orbital motion. The other side thinks that is fiction.
When you move the cup with your hands, you are trying to replicate gravity. Gravity steers.”
Yep it steers the body to follow the orbital path, but not the orientation.
To make the coffee cup orbit the fist requires the holder to apply tiny pushes or pulls on the cup.
If these could be measured, one would find they always point to the fist.
In fact orbiting my phone around my fist I can measure the accelerations, and find acceleration in x, then y, then -x, then -y, IOW the forces are always to the center (the fist).
Looks like we have someone drifting in after the commenters have moved on…
So the ones who have moved on when the matter has not been resolved.
What did they do?
Enroll in some Science classes like Physics or Astronomy.
No Chemistry, we know that’s too tough for them.
“someone drifting in after the commenters have moved on”
Someone still unable to follow
This advice:
if you simply respond to what people say, and refer to its commenter as little as possible, you should be fine.
Sounds a lot like an insult, bob.
DREMT,
If it is, then you have insulting me on many occasions.
Not true, bob.
DREMT,
Now we are arguing about what an insult is, that’s not progress on a science blog.
“You simply cant get it through your head that its the other motion thats important.
That’s an insult.
False.
And still the Moon spins, DREMT.
And the GHE is making the Earth warmer, DREMT.
If you say so, bob.
I do, and I am correct, DREMT.
So you keep saying.
And you have failed to prove me wrong, DREMT.
Can’t quite let me go, can you, bob? You’re still declaring yourself the victor.
If you want rid of me, all you have to do is stop responding. But, you just can’t.
What part of ‘DREMT is required to have the last word’ dont you get, Bob?
Of course, with that rule, it will be impossible for him to ever depart..
See? They just cannot do it. Funny.
Nate,
He is my pet, I’ll play with him whenever I want to.
Weird…and definitely an insult.
Obviously, talking about me to others and including me in lists, etc, also counts. I’ll be keeping an eye on the threads.
Of course, if you don’t want me to go…
See, he comes when I call.
Sit, DREMT, sit.
Are you a good boy?
Hopefully, your abuse will be noted. Thank you.
The point is, DREMT is unable to not respond to you, Bob, or me, or any of us.
Bwa ha ha!
Fetch!
Hopefully, your abuse will be noted.
Based on your behavior, I am safe.
Tug o war, or fetch?
Whether or not you’re "safe" depends solely on your own behaviour, bob. It has nothing to do with me.
Right now, you’re not doing too good…
As long as I don’t tell someone to gfy, I think I am fine.
You not so much.
bob, you have to factor in the number of comments without insults, and the sort of provocation received for the insulting comments. Generally, I am one of the least regularly insulting commenters, despite receiving intense provocation. On the other hand, you have been chucking insults around, without provocation, under an article where Dr Spencer is specifically referring to insults as a bad thing that he’s trying to stop. You are one of the repeat offenders, bob.
Where and when have I insulted you on this thread or any recent thread, DREMT?
You’ve said (in the comments under this article) that I lack scientific insight, lack morals, and you’ve literally treated me as though I’m a dog. So, that’s three insulting things right there.
Up-thread, you said, "just learn some science from those of us willing to teach". What’s interesting about that is, though I’d always be happy to learn some more science, those that make themselves out to be "science teachers" at this blog are not apparently able to understand some pretty basic things, like rotation. This makes it hard for me to trust in their abilities to teach.
For example, bob flits between understanding that the ball on a string only has one axis of rotation wrt an inertial reference frame, not two (never two)…to claiming that it has "at least" four! He probably still thinks that his "stiff wire" scenario involves two axes of rotation, instead of the one that it really involves.
No matter what, I cannot get through to bob that he has it wrong. I’ve tried multiple sources, practical demonstrations (think the transmographer) and Ftop_t even tried a mathematical proof. Nothing works. Which is partly why I’m leaving. Mainly it’s to spend more time with my family, but partly it’s because it’s impossible to get through to some of the people here…and the friends of theirs that know better, do nothing to help.
So, why bother wasting my time? There are far more important things in life.
DREMT,
“Youve said (in the comments under this article) that I lack scientific insight”
The general consensus among all Astronomers is that the Moon rotates on its axis, so yes you lack scientific insight.
“Whats interesting about that is, though Id always be happy to learn some more science, those that make themselves out to be “science teachers” at this blog are not apparently able to understand some pretty basic things, like rotation.”
You have finally given a correct definition of rotation, but lack the skills to apply that definition to the rotation of the Moon.
“For example, bob flits between understanding that the ball on a string only has one axis of rotation wrt an inertial reference frame, not two (never two)to claiming that it has “at least” four!”
One axis of rotation, and at least 4 orbital axes. You keep confusing rotating and revolving. No attempt to clarify your thinking has been successful.
Write this 10000 times on the chalkboard, “Orbits are not rotations”
Because rotations are circular and orbits are ellipses, parabolas, hyperbolas, or chaotic, but never circular.
Even the ball on a string can’t be rotated around a point, you have to move your hand back and forth to make it revolve.
“Ive tried multiple sources, practical demonstrations (think the transmographer) and Ftop_t even tried a mathematical proof.”
The transmographer is not a formal proof, but my proof based on the different velocities of the near side and far side of the Moon does indeed prove that the Moon rotates.
“No matter what, I cannot get through to bob that he has it wrong.”
If I am shown to be wrong, I will admit my mistake, but will you ever admit that the Moon rotates on its axis?
“Revolution” doesn’t enter into it, because it’s a ball on a string, not a celestial body.
It does not have “at least 4 orbital axes”. It’s a ball on a string.
It has only one axis of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame. Some might argue (incorrectly, I might add) that it goes through the ball itself, and some might argue (correctly) that it goes through the hand of the person twirling it. Either way, though, there is only one axis of rotation. Not two.
It doesn’t matter that your hand moves back and forth to twirl the ball. That just means the axis of rotation moves back and forth.
If you can’t understand all the above, you’re in no position to teach anyone anything.
“Revolution doesnt enter into it, because its a ball on a string, not a celestial body.”
This is again the Motte-Bailey fallacy at work.
When challenged on the difficult to defend Bailey: that these ideas/examples serve as a good model for planetary orbits, just return to the easily defended Motte:
This is about the BOS, not celestial bodies!
DREMT.
“If you cant understand all the above, youre in no position to teach anyone anything.”
I do understand all the above, you are just wrong.
The last four jobs I have had involved teaching, people actually paid me to teach.
All the times you have PSTd me, was just you being rude.
Thanks for all the fish and don’t let the door hit you on the ass as you leave.
bob, as recently as the 1st August, you agreed the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1681117
Funny how quickly you forget.
Of course, Nate agrees that there is only one axis. Not that he would ever correct you on your “4 axes” nonsense.
DREMT,
The ball on a string has one axis of rotation, and four axes of revolution or orbiting.
The ball is spinning on an internal axis of rotation.
The ball revolves around your hand, it revolves around the center of the earth, it revolves around the Sun, and it revolves around the Milky way galaxy.
Remember orbits are not rotations.
The ball itself has only one axis of rotation, located at the hand of the person twirling it. The ball on a string (as a complete unit, including the person twirling it) might be revolving around the center of the Earth, which is revolving around the Sun, which is revolving around the galaxy, but that is not relevant to the motion of the ball itself, which moves in a circle around the hand of the person twirling it, on the end of the string.
You could argue that the ball is translating in a circle, whilst rotating on its own internal axis, if you wish (and I’d tell you why that’s wrong).
You can’t argue that it is has two axes of rotation, though.
DREMT,
” which moves in a circle around the hand of the person twirling it, on the end of the string.”
Not quite circular.
But the ball is rotating on an internal axis.
This has been proven.
bob…forget about where the axis of rotation is, for a minute. My point was:
“Up-thread, you said, "just learn some science from those of us willing to teach". What’s interesting about that is, though I’d always be happy to learn some more science, those that make themselves out to be "science teachers" at this blog are not apparently able to understand some pretty basic things, like rotation. This makes it hard for me to trust in their abilities to teach.
For example, bob flits between understanding that the ball on a string only has one axis of rotation wrt an inertial reference frame, not two (never two)…to claiming that it has "at least" four! He probably still thinks that his "stiff wire" scenario involves two axes of rotation, instead of the one that it really involves.“
Do you finally accept that the ball has only one axis of rotation wrt an inertial reference frame, and not two (or more!)?
Or are you going to accept it, and then start talking about multiple “axes of revolution” at a later date? I can’t seem to pin you down to any sensible statement on this issue. Which is why I cannot see you as fit to teach.
DREMT,
I can teach, but you don’t seem to be able to learn simple things about Astronomy.
Orbits are not rotations.
Yes there is only one axis of rotation for the Moon and the ball on a string, it is through the ball or the Moon.
Use the terminology of Astronomers, bodies revolve around other bodies, which is not a rotation, while they always rotate around an axis through the body.
Do you still think there is an “axis of revolution” going through the hand swinging the ball on a string in a loop?
If your answer is “yes”, then you cannot argue that there is also an axis of rotation going through the ball itself.
Since there are not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string. And, calling one of them an “axis of revolution” does not allow you to bypass that fact. Semantics can’t change the reality that there are not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string.
Do you understand, and do you agree, or are you still not fit to teach after half a decade of getting the basics wrong on this issue?
DREMT,
“If your answer is yes, then you cannot argue that there is also an axis of rotation going through the ball itself.”
Yes I can, they are two independent motions.
The ball has been proven to have a rotational axis through the ball.
One axis of rotation and one axis of revolution.
bob, you are the one saying “orbits are not rotations”. Since “revolution” means “orbit” and “axis”, in the context of “motion”, refers explicitly to “rotation”, then “axis of revolution” means you are quite literally saying that orbits are rotations. You’re contradicting yourself, as usual.
There are not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string, and trying to call one of them an “axis of revolution” cannot bypass that fact.
DREMT,
There is only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string, it’s through the ball.
“One axis of rotation and one axis of revolution.“
Which equals two axes of rotation. Which is wrong, for the ball on a string. You have been wrong for half a decade on a very simple matter, and are thus not fit to teach.
DREMT,
“One axis of rotation and one axis of revolution.”
“Which equals two axes of rotation.”
Nope, an axis of rotation is not an axis of revolution.
All rotations are circular, all revolutions in Astronomy are not.
The Moon rotates on an internal axis.
That’s my bailey.
I don’t want to argue about my moat.
bob, you recently provided a definition which states an “axis of revolution” is just an axis of rotation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1680721
DREMT,
That was in response to you saying an axis was confined to rotations.
Both rotations and revolutions have an axis.
Then you’re arguing that orbits are rotations.
Your definition:
"Line around which an object rotates
An axis of rotation (also called an axis of revolution) is a line around which an object rotates. It is usually imaginary in calculus and physics1. When a plane figure is rotated around this axis, it creates a solid of revolution2."
If an "axis of revolution" is a line around which an object rotates, then an object that’s revolving (or orbiting) is rotating around a line.
So, you need to make up your mind about whether or not you think orbits are rotations.
Then, you need to acknowledge that if you think the ball on a string is rotating about a line called an "axis of revolution", and rotating about a line called an "axis of rotation", then you obviously think it’s rotating about two axes. Which is wrong, for the ball on a string. There is only one axis for its motion. How many times, and in how many different ways, does this need to be proven to you?
DREMT,
Rotations are circular.
Orbits are not circular.
Therefore orbits are not rotations.
“How many times, and in how many different ways, does this need to be proven to you?”
Once, and it has yet to be proven.
"Rotations are circular.
Orbits are not circular.
Therefore orbits are not rotations."
The definition that you provided states that an "axis of revolution" is a line around which an object rotates. If an "axis of revolution" is a line around which an object rotates, then an object that’s revolving (or orbiting) is rotating around a line.
So, you need to make up your mind about whether or not you think orbits are rotations.
"Once, and it has yet to be proven."
It was proven mathematically by Ftop_t. Remember, I’m not saying where the axis is, just yet. I’m saying that there’s only one axis. Not two. That’s what he proved. If there were two axes, the ball would have to be wrapping itself up in the string.
DREMT,
Ftop did not prove anything, you failed to look under the hood of his animation.
How many variables does it take to model a ball on a string in two dimensions?
[DREMT]”If an “axis of revolution” is a line around which an object rotates, then an object thats revolving (or orbiting) is rotating around a line.”
No, it’s revolving around that line, in Astronomy a distinction is made between rotating and revolving.
[DREMT]”So, you need to make up your mind about whether or not you think orbits are rotations.”
How many times do I have to say that orbits are not rotations.
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
"Ftop did not prove anything, you failed to look under the hood of his animation."
The proof I am referring to involved rotation matrices. It did not involve an animation.
"No, it’s revolving around that line"
Wrong, bob, according to the definition that you provided. It specifically states that it rotates around that line:
"Line around which an object rotates
An axis of rotation (also called an axis of revolution) is a line around which an object rotates. It is usually imaginary in calculus and physics1. When a plane figure is rotated around this axis, it creates a solid of revolution2."
DREMT,
A distinction is made in Astronomy.
Ftops matrix proof is not good.
How many variables again?
The definition you provided is completely clear in what it’s saying, bob. It doesn’t support you. It supports me.
If there is something wrong with Ftop_t’s proof, show it. Show your work.
I’m done for the day (that’s my ten comments). Have fun continuing your denial.
You’re not fit to teach anyone, because you’ve been wrong for half a decade on an incredibly simple issue, and you refuse to admit it.
DREMT,
All Ftop proved is that a rotation is a rotation.
Did you study matrices when in university?
Several companies disagree with you on my ability to teach.
Obviously, I can’t teach you.
You can’t answer any of my questions, like how many variables are in Ftops proof? Which might lead to answering the question of how many motions are in a ball on a string revolving around your hand while it rotates on its internal axis.
Ftop_t proved that movement like a ball on a string could be modelled with only one single rotation about an external axis, and that if you also rotate the object about an internal axis, then it no longer moves as per the ball on a string. He also conceded that the movement of the ball on a string could be modelled as a translation in a circle plus a rotation about an internal axis.
So, either way, there is only one axis for the ball on a string’s movement.
https://web.archive.org/web/20231016085906/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566034
DREMT,
“He also conceded that the movement of the ball on a string could be modelled as a translation in a circle plus a rotation about an internal axis.”
That translation in a circle also has an axis, perpendicular to the plane of the circle through the center of the circle.
That plus the axis of rotation through the ball makes two axes.
Though I would call it an orbit plus a rotation.
Now bob is arguing that translation involves an axis! An “axis of translation”, I guess. The phrase “you couldn’t make it up” springs to mind.
DREMT,
If the translation repeatedly follows the same path, then yes, and it traces out a circle perpendicular to that axis.
Here is the money quote:
“The mathematical formula for rotating that triangle about its own axis (90 degrees) and about an external (90 degrees) would be as follows”
Quess who made that statement.
FYI,
“In astronomy the orbital axis is a line that’s perpendicular to the imaginary plane that Earth moves through as it orbits the sun. The orbital axis is also perpendicular to the ecliptic, which is a thin disk that surrounds the sun and extends to the edge of the solar system.
Earth’s orbital axis is not perpendicular to its rotational axis, which is an imaginary line that passes through both the North Pole and South Pole. The angle between the two axes is called the axial tilt, or obliquity of the ecliptic.”
bob, the result of applying that formula was that the object did not move as per the ball on a string.
There is no such thing as an axis of translation.
DREMT,
Yes, there is such a thing as an axis of translation.
It is the line perpendicular to the path of the curvilinear translation in a circle. It exists, and I just described it
.
Ftops mathematical transformation does what the ball on a string does, it rotates on its axis as it revolves around the origin.
But we are talking about real celestial objects, not imaginary lines on paper.
bob, there is no such thing as an axis of translation. As usual, this is getting beyond ridiculous. Maybe link to something to support your contention that an axis of translation exists!?
You apparently cannot even follow the verbal description of what Ftop_t is doing. He describes that he rotates the object about an external axis and an internal axis, and the resulting movement is different to how the ball on a string would move. He gets it to move like the ball on a string by only rotating it about an external axis. Then, he adds at the end that he could also replicate the same movement by translating the object and rotating about an internal axis.
DREMT,
I give up, I will only discuss whether or not the Moon rotates on its axis.
Because you have no training in Geometry, Physics, or even Astronomy.
And the Moon rotates on its axis.
I will respond to that and nothing more.
Yes, you should give up, because you are in the wrong about the ball on a string. You’ve been in the wrong for half a decade, and you refuse to admit it, even going so far as to make up nonsense about an “axis of translation”. It’s because of stuff like this that people should recognise you are not fit to teach.
And, you’re far from the only one.
“Maybe link to something to support your contention that an axis of translation exists!?”
Orbital axis exists, as my quote above demonstrates.
Because orbital motion occurs in a plane, a line perpendicular to that plane can be geometrically defined.
Here is Nate, agreeing with what Ftop_t showed:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231016085906/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-567585
For some reason, he is not arguing with bob, who disagrees with what Ftop_t showed. Instead, he is trying to support bob. Yet, an “axis of translation” does not exist, and the closest thing they can find is “orbital axis”, a term from astronomy. Yet, we’re talking about a ball on a string, not a celestial body. Up in smoke that goes, then.
DREMT,
You can cut out the insults.
And by the way, Ftops proof is only a rotation, not a rotation about any axis, because there is no axis of rotation on an Euclidean plane.
I’m not insulting you, bob. You tried to make out you were a teacher. I’m pointing out that you are not fit to teach, because you have been mistaken on a simple issue for five years, and won’t admit to it.
Another example was when we argued about two descriptions of the GHE. I pointed out that they could not possibly both be correct. You insisted they were both correct. You attacked me relentlessly for weeks, about it. In the end, Tim described one of the versions as wrong, and that anyone arguing it was a description of the GHE did not understand the GHE, or words to that effect!
Good exemplar of DREMT reverting to ‘playing the man not the ball’.
Now, he admits “the closest thing they can find is orbital axis, a term from astronomy.”
An orbit is simply a translation of body around another. As noted, that motion is in a plane, and therefore there is a line perpendicular to that plane called the orbital axis.
That is a different axis from the rotational axis, for both Earth and the Moon.
Which is a KEY point. Because ultimately this conversation IS ABOUT orbits and rotations.
But the entire argument of the non-spinners has involved a Motte-Bailey fallacy, in which the idea that the BOS is a good model of planetary motion is very often promoted…. until that is challenged, then they return to defensible Motte:
“Yet, were talking about a ball on a string, not a celestial body. Up in smoke that goes, then.”
Wrong, Nate. This discussion is about bob saying he’s a science teacher, despite being wrong for half a decade on something as simple as a ball on a string. The rotation discussion is thus specifically about the ball on a string. Not the moon.
DREMT,
Maybe I disagree with someone about descriptions of the greenhouse effect, but I am not like you, who thinks there is no greenhouse effect at all.
You are totally wrong about that, and the green plate effect.
I do have corporate teaching certificates, so you saying I am not fit to teach is just hot air.
Anyway, it has been known since Newton and Cassini that the Moon rotates on its axis while orbiting the Earth.
Reducing the problem to a curvilinear translation is just wrong because that is planar motion, not three dimensional.
All these things including Ftops work ignore the fact that all these things are rotating because they fit the definition of rotation that you provided.
You can bark at me all you want telling me I have been wrong for half a decade, but it is still you who have been wrong.
Ftops thing rotates his triangle on any axis on the plane, because it is a pure rotation, not a rotation about any axis.
He rotates 3 points, points can’t rotate, they only have 0 dimensions, but once you have connected them with line segments, then those line segments rotate.
So anyway, my point was to show that this ststement
“bob, there is no such thing as an axis of translation. As usual, this is getting beyond ridiculous.”
was wrong.
Since a motion (orbit) that can be purely translational can still have a defined axis.
Oh well!
And, as explained, a ball on a string is not a celestial body. So, you are wrong, and I am right, Nate. Oh well!
bob, if you could admit your mistakes, you might finally gain some of the credibility you obviously feel you deserve.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] In other words, a ball on a string has only one axis of rotation. This is apparently accepted by some Spinners, so I will be expecting them to
[NATE] [Graham] reads selectively again. Read the part from EQUIVALENTLY onward. What do you find there to disagree with?
https://web.archive.org/web/20231016085906/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-568169
Astute readers might wonder about the onward part:
[ALSO NATE] EQUIVALENTLY as a translation of the CM of the object around the external axis, ie a circular orbit, plus rotation around its own axis.
Bob might have had a point all along after all.
No, bob has been wrong on rotation, and the ball on a string, for half a decade.
I read through a lot of those old discussions earlier today, actually. Really astute readers will have noted the relentless abuse I received for being obviously correct about a trivial matter.
I think that’s my ten comments for the day. Have fun talking to yourselves, until tomorrow.
Yes, Graham D. Warner has been wrong all along, conflating equivalence with incompatibility. Astute readers knew that already. What they might have forgotten is this remark by MR:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231016085906/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-568134
Let them to what the asterisk refers. What matters here is that Flop knew that his trick relied on breaking isometry all along.
Tsk tsk.
DREMT,
I may have to go back to DR EMPTY if you don’t stop with the abuse and the lying.
Of course if an object in translation repeats the motion, and that motion describes a circle, which has a center and that circle and center defines a line perpendicular to that center and aligned with that center, that is an axis of that translation.
In other words, translation in a circle defines an axis, every point of which is equidistant from the circle.
Still won’t try to revolve a baseball around a basketball three times keeping one face of the baseball towards the basketball, standing in one spot and not changing the grip on the baseball.
If the students won’t do the experiments I suggest, it’s not my problem that they can’t learn, and they can bitch to whomever they want when I give them an F.
Another thing, the ball on a string can not wrap around the string because the string is pulling on the ball, causing it to rotate with the same frequency as the string revolves.
bob, there is no such thing as an axis of translation. As usual, this is getting beyond ridiculous.
Notice this is a general statement is not specific to a BOS.
And it is still wrong.
Oh well!
Nate,
Unless you are being doppleganged, you know I am referring to a specific case of translation.
This should make DREMT happy, do you want to argue some more?
Threads too long but
Oh well,
I forgot the obligatory response to an Oh Well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yq-Fw7C26Y
Little Willy, not only are all the points you’ve brought up wrong, for one reason or another; far more importantly, they are all irrelevant to what bob and I are talking about. Maybe next time, try to check through the discussion before you comment, to make sure you’re going to be contributing something that’s relevant.
bob says:
"I may have to go back to DR EMPTY if you don’t stop with the abuse and the lying."
What abuse, and what lying, bob? Falsely accusing me of lying is just another form of abuse, by the way.
"Of course if an object in translation repeats the motion, and that motion describes a circle, which has a center and that circle and center defines a line perpendicular to that center and aligned with that center, that is an axis of that translation. In other words, translation in a circle defines an axis, every point of which is equidistant from the circle."
Make up whatever you like, bob. In the context of the ball on a string, there is no such thing as an "axis of translation". In astronomy, there is an "orbital axis". Note that it’s not called an "axis of translation", so still, even in astronomy, there’s not actually an "axis of translation", by name. Whether or not an "orbital axis" can really be considered to be an axis for an object that’s translating of course depends on the rather thorny question of whether "orbit without spin" is translational or rotational motion. A subject that I will not be getting into in this discussion.
"Still won’t try to revolve a baseball around a basketball three times keeping one face of the baseball towards the basketball, standing in one spot and not changing the grip on the baseball. If the students won’t do the experiments I suggest, it’s not my problem that they can’t learn, and they can bitch to whomever they want when I give them an F."
More abuse.
"Another thing, the ball on a string can not wrap around the string because the string is pulling on the ball, causing it to rotate with the same frequency as the string revolves."
Of course the ball cannot wrap around the string.
bob, my only point in this entire discussion has been that you’ve been wrong about something as simple as rotation, and the ball on a string, for half a decade, and thus are not fit to teach. What you’ve got wrong, repeatedly, is to suggest that the ball on a string has two axes of rotation. And, calling one of them an "axis of revolution" doesn’t change the fact that you’re saying the ball on a string has two axes of rotation, because the definition you provided said that an "axis of revolution" was just an axis of rotation!
You also used to argue that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" was movement like the MOTR, and not the MOTL. You were wrong about that, too, but it seems like you’ve stopped arguing that now, without ever really acknowledging that you were wrong about it for all those years.
Plus, of course, you were wrong about those GHE descriptions. Making Swen.son’s constant requests for descriptions of the GHE understandable, since you lot can’t even describe it properly! You can’t even agree amongst yourselves on how it’s described. Yet, you claim you’re here to teach science.
Dear oh dear.
Bob,
This https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1685044
dropped the quote symbols on the first sentence, which was DREMT’s statement.
I was pointing out, again, why it was wrong.
And it was a response to this DREMT excuse
“And, as explained, a ball on a string is not a celestial body. So, you are wrong, and I am right, Nate. Oh well!”
which is a red herring, since his statement about ‘there is not such thing as an axis of translation’ was general and not specific to the BOS.
So he was wrong about that as well.
Par for the course. And we see new excuses today. They will never end.
The whole discussion was about the ball on a string, Nate. Context is important. You bringing up a phrase from astronomy was the red herring, in the first place. But, you never concede anything, so no point continuing to discuss it.
DR EMPTY,
“bob, my only point in this entire discussion has been that youve been wrong about something as simple as rotation, and the ball on a string, for half a decade, and thus are not fit to teach.”
That’s a lie.
The ball on a string is rotating around a single axis through the ball.
If I am wrong about that, I am in good company, at least a dozen posters on this site, as well as Newton and Cassini.
You can find a lot of people who don’t get this.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-the-ball-rotate-about-its-axis.415818/
The ball on a string rotates according to your provided definition of rotation.
So, now bob changes to “it’s only rotating about a single axis”! I suppose he’s going to pretend he’s never said the ball on a string has two (or more) axes of rotation.
Hilarious.
DR EMPTY,
One axis of rotation and one axis of revolution.
Yes, I changed my mind on that, because of the abuse I got from you.
The Moon on the right is the one that is not rotating.
It’s ridiculous to claim it’s rotating clockwise.
An “axis of revolution” is an axis of rotation, according to the definition that you provided. So, you are still saying the ball on a string has two axes of rotation.
DR EMTPY,
Since my moat has been over run by pedantry, I will retreat to my bailey.
The Moon rotates on an internal axis while revolving around both the Earth and the Sun.
“The whole discussion was about the ball on a string, Nate. Context is important. You bringing up a phrase from astronomy was the red herring, in the first place.”
oh I see. So when you said
‘There is no such thing as an axis of translation.’
You meant
‘There is no such thing as an axis of translation for a ball on a string’??
But, unfortunately you didn’t actually say that.
So, no I do not concede that your statement was wrong, because it was wrong.
As I said, you can never concede anything. Thanks for proving me right, yet again.
DR EMPTY,
If the ball on a string is an example of orbital motion without axial rotation.
Then the ball on a string is not rotating on any axis, neither external nor internal.
[ME, QUOTING MIKER] “Unfortunately your ball on a string is not going to fare any better, particularly if the string is of constant length”
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] irrelevant to what bob and I are talking about.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] The whole discussion was about the ball on a string, Nate.
Mike R’s point was about elliptical orbits, Little Willy. Nothing to do with what bob and I are talking about. Again, try to read through the discussion before you start commenting, to make sure your comment is relevant. Just some advice for you, going forward.
That’s my ten comments for the day.
I wonder if bob is proud of the comments he makes?
Pride goeth before a fall.
So not for a few weeks then.
I am proud of my wife and daughter’s accomplishments, but not much else.
If you are anticipation leaving us because you want to spend more time with your children, well Just a Duck might be worthy.
Graham D. Warner, besides soon reaching his 10th comment for the day, if he didn’t overstepped it since astute readers last counted, still forgets that a real ball on string has at least two axes of rotation:
https://tinyurl.com/the-hammer-throw
This echoes MikeR’s point, for the only way *this* can be described as a pure rotation is if rotations could break isometry.
And of course Bob is right in recalling that a ball on string is usually three-dimensional.
DR EMPTY,
“Mike Rs point was about elliptical orbits, Little Willy. Nothing to do with what bob and I are talking about. Again, try to read through the discussion before you start commenting, to make sure your comment is relevant. Just some advice for you, going forward.
Thats my ten comments for the day.
I wonder if bob is proud of the comments he makes?”
DR EMPTY, we were talking about a lot of things, orbits being one of them.
You shall not mention another poster when responding to a different poster unless you quote them.
It’s bad manners you uncouth Englishman.
Graham D. Warner is obviously wrong:
https://tinyurl.com/the-hammer-throw
This echoes MikeR’s point.
And of course Bob is right in recalling that a ball on string is usually three-dimensional.
Little Willy, “the hammer throw” and “isometry” have absolutely nothing to do with whether a ball on a string has two axes of rotation or not. For the third time, please try to make sure that the points you raise have some relevance to what is being discussed.
For the record, your “hammer throw” animation shows two objects rotating about a single, shared axis, located at what’s known as a “barycentre”. The axis is external to the smaller object, and is within the larger object, but not passing through its centre of mass.
Even if you could somehow make an argument that the ball on a string was not rotating about an external axis (which you have failed to do thus far) it would then still not be rotating about two different axes. Which is why your points are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a ball on a string has two axes of rotation.
The answer is that a ball on a string does not have two axes of rotation.
Graham D. Warner does not always return to old threads to *get* the last word, but when he does sometimes it is to add to his own fabrications. To remind less astute readers, he misrepresents the topic being discussed (it is not only his motte but also the motion of the Moon) and he misrepresents the point behind the hammer throw.
As astute readers already noted, that physically twirling the ball on string requires that the hand moves in space. It cannot stay still. If one could, there would not be olympians specializing in throwing stuff. Just like with a real, concrete spinning wheel, that involves a little more than one axis in space.
So in a way when Graham D. Warner is talking about his balls, he is mostly referring to his pet GIF.
Yes, Little Willy, the hand moves back and forth in space, to twirl the ball on a string. That just means the external axis of rotation moves back and forth in space. It doesn’t mean there is no longer an external axis of rotation. Even if you could somehow successfully argue that there wasn’t, then you still don’t have two axes of rotation for the ball on a string. So, it’s a moot point.
There are not two axes of rotation for the ball on a string.
And no, this discussion is not about the moon. It’s just about the ball on a string.
And no, I have not “fabricated” anything.
And no, I was not returning to get the last word. I already had the last word. I just wanted you to understand why you were wrong. So, I elaborated.
Its been going on now for years.
bobdroege, tim s, willard, bindidon, rlh, and nate all remain slaves to their daddies. Their daddy taught them the ”convention” of considering the moon as rotating on its own axis and they then extrapolate far beyond science to an extent that they effectively deny the scientific concept of a rotation around an external axis.
But they won’t even admit that. They make so many conditions for a rotation around an external axis they effectively eliminate it ever occurring in nature.
It really is laughable how they follow their leaders nose to butt. . .where the view never changes.
Bindidon especially. He even gets indignant as if somebody is insulting him and who he believe his daddy is by somebody simply noting the emperor has no clothes on a single issue.
For example, they consider a rotation can’t be anything but a perfect circle with zero perturbations. They argue about the perturbances of the moon denying an orbit is consistent with the concept of a rotation on an external axis. They will then deny orbital forcing by handwaving it away without a single calculation. All this because they believe their daddy told them to not think about such stuff. . .thats its dangerous misinformation and should be oppressed.
Actually their daddy, or at least who they believe their daddy is, didn’t actually tell them that yet they still believe it.
the problem is they only actually connect with their daddy through a seance session with a gypsy fortune teller. Otherise known as the mainstream press and the writers of children books.
They can’t provide a single scientific and quantified reference to practically any key concept they absolutely believe to be an incontrovertible fact.
> They cant provide a single scientific and quantified reference
That’s true. I alone provided more than 100. Here’s one:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.11293
Astute readers should expect some “but modulz” galloping. Meanwhile, they surely appreciate that science can be beautiful:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359637877/figure/fig3/AS:1139901043093505@1648784995920/Rotation-and-translation-in-hammer-throw-Adapted-from-Dapena-1986.png
One simply has to drop word games.
Uggh, Bill seemingly is trying to get banned…
"…and they then extrapolate far beyond science to an extent that they effectively deny the scientific concept of a rotation around an external axis."
Absolutely correct, Bill. That’s what I was going to get on to, if any of them had ever conceded that the ball on a string does not have two axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame.
I know that Nate agrees, he just doesn’t want to explicitly say so, because then he’d be throwing bob and Ball4 under the bus, who have both been wrong for half a decade on the subject.
I tried to stick to just talking about the ball on a string, because then we don’t have all the silly distractions about "isometry" and the like. Also, I’ve spent years arguing with people purely about the ball on a string, so it seemed a fitting way to end my run of commenting.
Anyway, I digress. Yes, once you’ve accepted the fact that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, either way you want to look at it, then logically it shouldn’t be long before you finally accept that the ball on a string is objectively not rotating on its own internal axis. That’s because you have to basically "deny the scientific concept of a rotation around an external axis" to think otherwise. If the ball on a string is not a textbook example of an object rotating about an external axis, then I don’t know what is. And, if you’ve accepted that it has only one axis of rotation wrt an inertial reference frame, then if it’s rotating about an external axis it is not rotating about an internal axis.
If the ball on a string is an example of orbital motion without axial rotation, then the ball on a string is rotating about zero axes of rotation.
The non spinner argument, no rotation about any axes.
That’s your argument DREMT in a nutshell.
No external axis, no internal axis, no axes whatsoever.
Bill,
“Their daddy taught them the convention of considering the moon as rotating on its own axis and they then extrapolate far beyond science to an extent that they effectively deny the scientific concept of a rotation around an external axis.”
Not from my daddy, but from Herbert S Zim, way before third grade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Zim
But thanks for the gratuitous insults.
You don’t seem to understand why we think orbits are not rotations.
We don’t deny the concept of rotations, we just know better where to apply them.
Nate says:
”Wow. Now you think orbital forcing also produces CO2?? Odd.”
No little Natty I don’t think orbital forcing ”produces” CO2. Orbital forcing changes the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere vs the ocean and it does so by heating and cooling the surface of the ocean.
—————–
Well if you accept that there is a rotation about an external axis as most scientists believe. Then you have to recognize orbital motion is a rotation around an external axis.
If you want to claim that determining whether an axis exists or not is optional, ”we just know better where to apply them.” then don’t pretend any longer that you are still talking about science.
"If the ball on a string is an example of orbital motion without axial rotation, then the ball on a string is rotating about zero axes of rotation."
bob, when we started these discussions, years ago, you used to tell me that "revolution", or "orbit", was a rotation about an external axis. However, you used to claim that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" was movement as per the MOTR, rather than the MOTL. That’s how you mentally justified your belief that the moon spins.
Now, years later, you’ve finally realised that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is movement as per the MOTL, and not the MOTR. So, to mentally justify your belief that the moon spins, you have to now argue that "revolution", or "orbit", is a translation in an ellipse. No rotation about an external axis any more, for bob.
Your beliefs have turned around 180 degrees to what they were before. But hey…as long as you still think the moon spins, who cares, right?
> If the ball on a string is an example of orbital motion without axial rotation, then the ball on a string is rotating about zero axes of rotation.
Absolutely correct, Bob. It’s as if Graham D. Warner never realized that if the ball did not spin, neither did he. At least if he accepts the real physics behind a hammer throw…
But does he?
With the normal ball on a string being swung around by a person’s hand, the single, external axis of rotation moves back and forth in space as the person’s hand moves back and forth in space. No problems there.
With the hammer throw, the entire body of the person swinging the hammer also rotates around an axis passing through the barycenter between the hammer and the thrower. Just as I already explained, Little Willy, in response to the animation that you linked to. Both thrower and hammer are rotating about that single, shared, external axis of rotation that passes through the barycenter.
None of that changes the reality that the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, either way you want to look at it. Not two. Never two axes of rotation. Even if, for some bizarre reason, you wanted to describe the hammer throw as the hammer and thrower both translating in a circle around a barycenter, whilst they rotate on their own internal axes, then there would still only be one axis of rotation for the hammer, which is the object in question.
> With the normal ball on a string being swung around by a person’s hand, the single, external axis of rotation moves back and forth in space
Astute readers might wonder four things here:
First, how to describe that “back and forth movement,”
Second, if that “back and forth movement” follows a path along some axis.
Third, how should we call such “back and forth movement” using the relevant concepts of geometry.
Fourth, if such “back and forth movement” should be included in the description, or if Graham D. Warner should continue to treat his balls as an indirect way to return to of his pet GIF.
Little Willy’s attempts to obfuscate something painfully simple are as amusing as they are desperate, and are not to be taken seriously. The origin of our reference frame passes through the external axis of rotation located at the person’s hand. So, the “back and forth” movements of the hand are effectively eliminated from our analysis. Just as the fact that the Earth is rotating on its own internal axis, and revolving around the Sun, which in turn is revolving around the galaxy, are also motions that are effectively eliminated from our analysis. We don’t need to consider that the “person plus ball on a string unit” is rotating about the Earth’s axis along with every other part of the Earth, in order to analyse the motion of the ball itself.
Of course, I’ve explained all this already, but some people just can’t listen.
bobdroege says:
”You dont seem to understand why we think orbits are not rotations.”
My list wasn’t designed to be comprehensive. For example I left out isometry.
If you feel I left out something original and important on your part by all means name it. I am not here to stop debate.
bobdroege says:
”Orbiting has nothing to do with orientation.”
You are confused bob. Your own side disagrees.
orbiting has everything to do with orientation.
1)Your brethren say its a motion separate from rotation on the internal axis and have called it a translation which demands that it maintain a single orientation wrt the stars.
If as you say it is NOT a rotation, and it is not a translation what kind of motion is it?
2) the gravity that creates the orbit is also a force that stretches the moon; such that if it does have a 2nd motion on its internal axis, the energy of at motion will be eventually transferred to the orbit and moon will become tidal locked. So tidal locking is integrally connected to orbiting and orientation arising out of the motion of orbiting and the gravity of the object orbited (external axis)
bobdroege says:
”But thanks for the gratuitous insults.”
If you think pointing out blindly following a leader when you are smarter than that is an insult. . .why do you keep doing it? I haven’t seen you even to attempt to explain why orbiting has nothing to do with orientation when clearly it does and most of your brethren also accept that having other irrelevant complaints like the orbit is perturbed by the gravity of other celestial bodies like the sun and the planets.
It also seems to be the case that you all deny such perturbations as I have been talking about orbital forcings and consistently seen a lot of handwaving simply because their daddies try to
keep that underwraps by never mentioning it in the context of radiant forcing. And they have never have quantified it while at the same time the science literature is full of general recognition of it.
If we can get to the root of why that is, figure out how to fix it, science could reclaim its rightful respect. Of course they don’t do that because my goodness it could be the first successful calculation related to climate change in history. Its complicated from the standpoint of barycenters between multiple objects being a complex equation. But in the end its just sines, cosigns, and gravity and the effects of gravitation pull on the 2 main orbital parameters along with solar brightness monitoring and the square distance law.
But I get it. In the private sector thats called grunt work. Probably really hard getting done in the public sector where you have students and teachers.
> Bill Hunter says:
Nothing much behind his wall of words.
Perhaps he could help Graham D. Warner characterize his “back and forth movement”?
Shouldn’t be too hard for him.
If he could also reflect on the fact that if we the hammer doesn’t spin, then neither is the thrower, that’d be great.
Neither the hammer nor the thrower are “spinning”, Little Willy (rotating about an axis passing through their centre). Both hammer and thrower are instead rotating about a single, shared axis that passes through the barycentre. Study the animation you linked to some more, until you understand it.
DREMT,
I am not discussing the Moon.
I am only talking about the ball on a string and concept of orbital motion without axial rotation.
Please try to recognize a conditional statement when I make one.
I’ll try again.
If the ball on a string is an example of orbital motion without axial rotation, then the ball on a string is not rotating about any axis.
Bill writes a confusing bit of word salad.
“You are confused bob. Your own side disagrees.”
I am on my own side and make my own arguments.
“orbiting has everything to do with orientation.
1)Your brethren say its a motion separate from rotation on the internal axis and have called it a translation which demands that it maintain a single orientation wrt the stars.
If as you say it is NOT a rotation, and it is not a translation what kind of motion is it?”
It’s an orbit and a rotation, I don’t care what kinematics says, if you are calling it a translation then you are in the wrong building, try the one with a dome on top.
“2) the gravity that creates the orbit is also a force that stretches the moon; such that if it does have a 2nd motion on its internal axis, the energy of at motion will be eventually transferred to the orbit and moon will become tidal locked. So tidal locking is integrally connected to orbiting and orientation arising out of the motion of orbiting and the gravity of the object orbited (external axis)”
The Moon is already tidally locked, but orientation changes at a different rate than the orbital speed, they are still independent. What is Libration Alex?
“If you think pointing out blindly following a leader when you are smarter than that is an insult. . .why do you keep doing it? I havent seen you even to attempt to explain why orbiting has nothing to do with orientation when clearly it does”
You can’t even identify the leader you claim I am following. Orbits are simply paths and rotations are independent of the path, and both are measured by Astronomers.
“It also seems to be the case that you all deny such perturbations as I have been talking about orbital forcings and consistently seen a lot of handwaving simply because their daddies try to
keep that underwraps by never mentioning it in the context of radiant forcing.”
Orbital forcings and their changes to radiant forcing are very slow and not relevant to the speed of climate change at this time.
bob how does that make any sense at all? No axis? what makes the ball go around the hand holding the other end of the string? Its an external axis. As I said to deny an orbit as a rotation one has to deny a rotation on an external axis that is accepted by innumerable numbers of scientists. Can you refer to a single paper that claims external axes don’t exist? You are way out beyond the outfield fence. Any thing you catch out there doesn’t stop the other team from scoring.
Bill,
Its really simple.
Some orbits are elliptical, and none are circular.
External rotations are circular.
Therefore no orbits are external rotations.
I dont need to find a paper that says that.
I hope I finally post this in the right place, is just a DREMT thread that goes on past its best by date.
bobdroege says:
”I am on my own side and make my own arguments.”
OK we have spinners and non-spinners. I guess we have to classify you as a half-a-spinner. When are you going to take on the spinners? Or is it you just have a grudge against non-spinners?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bobdroege says:
”Its an orbit and a rotation, I dont care what kinematics says, if you are calling it a translation then you are in the wrong building, try the one with a dome on top.”
You need to direct that one at the spinners that are calling it a translation. . .not the non-spinners. They are saying you need to recognize it as a rotation.
How do orbits differ from a rotation on an external axis Bob? You avoided answering that question.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bobdroege says:
”The Moon is already tidally locked, but orientation changes at a different rate than the orbital speed, they are still independent. What is Libration Alex?”
Thats the point I am making with the issue of natural climate change Bob. Other planets primarily cause the change in speed of the earth in its orbit around the sun. Like with a tetherball when somebody hits your service. . .yet that is still a rotation around an external axis. . .it just changed direction and the ball can change its orientation in that some of the energy from the rotation around an external axis can remain in the object at precisely the spin rate of the orbit. Thats the basic concept of angular momentum. If the object comes apart (like escaping orbit) each piece will have different spin rates depending upon how far they were from the axis. In the case of the moon that rate is the same whether you consider the axis to be external or internal. You just carry it further without any scientific merit and simply claim without evidence that the axis was internal as the internal axis is a redundant axis physically unconnected from the angular momentum of the orbit rotation but it becomes connected when the system breaks apart usually from the string breaking or in the case of an LP record spun on its internal axis the results will be identical to a rotation on an external axis with the same rate of revolution.
Its beyond me why you don’t want to recognize an orbit as a rotation of a system of objects. The easiest explanation is your daddy told you to not recognize it (like Bindidon’s interpretation of Newton) and/or you made up your ”own argument”. Of course you aren’t out there as far as Nate who changes his mind from translation, to general plane motion, to astrology or whatever he feels like at the moment.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bobdroege says:
”You cant even identify the leader you claim I am following. Orbits are simply paths and rotations are independent of the path, and both are measured by Astronomers.”
Thats incorrect. We know that the rotation is not independent of the path as it was created by the so-called path. If that path had never existed the tidal locked condition would have never existed. We know that should be considered a fact since the statistical chances of the moon to have independently matched the RPM of the orbit is nil.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bobdroege says:
”Orbital forcings and their changes to radiant forcing are very slow and not relevant to the speed of climate change at this time.”
Thats false. You have no authorities of any credibility to support that notion. We know that science accepts that the 100,000 year maximum and minimums to be a combination of an ever changing orbit wrt to the planets combined with axial changes. We also know that science attributes somewhere around 57.5% of the total variation that produces the 100,000 year cycle to planetary orbital effects and their feedbacks. And only 42.5% to the slow axial changes. Thats documented. Did you make up your own argument here or did you hear it from your daddy?
Most real scientists won’t touch this with a ten foot pole. They like to call it the 100,000 year problem and state they have no idea where the 100,000 year cycle came from. Convenient excuse? or is it actually obfuscation?
“Well if you accept that there is a rotation about an external axis as most scientists believe.”
Sure.
“Then you have to recognize orbital motion is a rotation around an external axis.”
No, does not follow.
Orbits in general are elliptical, and no one but you guys think that qualifies as a ‘rotation around an external axis’.
Eg Madhavi,
“Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along CIRCLES centered on the same fixed axis”
Now go ahead and whine about this is just ‘textbook’ science, not real world science, or some such nonsense!
If you cannot find a definition in any legitimate source that agrees with you, then we can all conclude that you just made it up.
Nate says:
”Orbits in general are elliptical, and no one but you guys think that qualifies as a rotation around an external axis.
Eg Madhavi,
”Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along CIRCLES centered on the same fixed axis”
Now go ahead and whine about this is just textbook science, not real world science, or some such nonsense!
If you cannot find a definition in any legitimate source that agrees with you, then we can all conclude that you just made it up.”
Nate all you are doing is what I said you do. You take what your daddy tells you, then you interpret it and establish limits nilly willy.
In the process you come to scientific conclusions about the real world and orbits that your daddy may or may not have even addressed.
Its not nonsense to distinguish between textbook science and real science. If you do that science can’t progress.
For example one can effectively argue that the only reason the orbit of earth is never perfectly circular is because Jupiter makes up more than 50% of the pull on earth of all the objects in the universe other than the sun.
that defines the ellipticity of earths orbit as a varying anomaly caused by the gravitational pull of other objects in the universe. Seems to me that is the current state of science on the matter and because it gets so near to zero thats the difference between a rare cooperation of the other objects pulling on earth in opposition to Jupiter. then its greatest ellipticity is when all the planets including Jupiter is cooperating.
Via that argument you have this underlying circular orbit that is in constant perturbation variation.
Seems a perfectly reasonable argument. Perhaps you have some science that disputes that. I am all ears. And of course even if you do you still don’t have an argument for why a rotation must be circular other than your interpretation of what your daddies have told you. So you can’t win and every argument you have offered heretosofar has been rebutted. . .meaning of course there is no science that establishes an orbit as not being a rotation. . .while in fact many do refer to it as a rotation.
Do you see where this is going?
Didn’t proof read until after posting.
”Its not nonsense to distinguish between textbook science and real science. If you do that science cant progress.”
Should have read: Its not nonsense to distinguish between textbook science and real science. If you don’t do that science cant progress.
Also, I said above: ”Seems to me that is the current state of science on the matter and because it gets so near to zero thats the difference between a rare cooperation of the other objects pulling on earth in opposition to Jupiter. then its greatest ellipticity is when all the planets including Jupiter is cooperating.”
I would assume that is how the maximum extent of earth’s orbital eccentricity was actually calculated giving maximum and minimum ellipticity.
At least I am not aware of any other way of estimating it as obviously we have never observed it.
If I am wrong about that, that would seem to be a path you could pursue to continue to support your subjective interpretations as to how orbits differ from rotations on external axes. See what a nice guy I am? I am trying to help your argument. Please show a little appreciation.
Bill,
“When are you going to take on the spinners?”
I am not going to do that. Because the Moon spins on its axis.
“How do orbits differ from a rotation on an external axis Bob? You avoided answering that question.”
I have answered that several times, but here again, some orbits are elliptical with a body at one of the foci. If they were rotations, one body would have to be at the point where the major and minor axes of the ellipse cross.
“Other planets primarily cause the change in speed of the earth in its orbit around the sun.”
Say what? The force on the Earth from other planets is very small compared to the force from the Sun.
“If the object comes apart (like escaping orbit) each piece will have different spin rates depending upon how far they were from the axis.”
Try to watch a high speed video of a record rotated so fast it come apart. The individual pieces rotate at the same rate but move with different velocities, as the conservation of angular momentum would predict.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-DTjpde9-0
“We know that should be considered a fact since the statistical chances of the moon to have independently matched the RPM of the orbit is nil.”
25% of the planets are tidally locked, and many of the moons in the solar system, especially the larger one. All the Galilean satelites of Jupiter are tidally locked.
Tidal locking represents the low energy solution to an orbit, so it is the most stable.
” You have no authorities of any credibility to support that notion. We know that science accepts that the 100,000 year maximum and minimums to be a combination of an ever changing orbit wrt to the planets combined with axial changes.”
That is slow in my book, more than 1000 lifetimes. That means what we are seeing is not natural climate change.
Something to grok on.
“In celestial mechanics, an orbit (also known as orbital revolution) is the curved trajectory of an object[1] such as the trajectory of a planet around a star, or of a natural satellite around a planet, or of an artificial satellite around an object or position in space such as a planet, moon, asteroid, or Lagrange point. Normally, orbit refers to a regularly repeating trajectory, although it may also refer to a non-repeating trajectory. To a close approximation, planets and satellites follow elliptic orbits, with the center of mass being orbited at a focal point of the ellipse,[2] as described by Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.”
Note the mention of how fast orbiting object rotate.
From my Daddy Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
You can check the references at the bottom of the page.
“You take what your daddy tells you”
As I predicted: nonsense.
In science we have to come to agreement on how things are defined, amps, volts, velocity, translations, rotations.
It makes little sense to alter these definitions jusy to advance your otherwise losing argument.
So you cannot offer a legitimate source that defines rotation to suit your needs, then that’s the end of it.
Nate says:
You take what your daddy tells you
As I predicted: nonsense.
In science we have to come to agreement on how things are defined, amps, volts, velocity, translations, rotations.
———————–
Using definitions is semantics rather than physics amd is an admission you don’t know the physics and just rely on what your daddy told you or worse what you think your daddy told you.
Its abundantly clear you have no intention of doing anything beyond what it took to memorize the test so you could pass it, if you did even that.
> Using definitions is semantics
Is that a definition?
Perhaps he should help Graham D. Warner, who just admitted that he did not believe that the Earth spins.
As usual Bill offers nothing but childish insults.
INsult? I see you proudly defending the practice. You sound like you are trying for a phony victim ID card.
I find it amazing how much difficulty these people have in accepting that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own internal axis. Yet some “Spinners”, e.g. Bindidon and Norman, have no problem accepting that.
Truly bizarre, the depths of denial some people will go to.
What is really amazing is the inconsistency.
They want to deny that orbital motion is a rotation simply because their daddy supposedly told them so.
Their support? Few scientists have acknowledged that orbital motion qualifies as a rotation.
After that they run out of consistent arguments. Its classic ”my” daddy never told me so, and since my daddy is the perfect there must be something wrong with those who have noted the inconsistency.
Yet if you actually dive into the literature, gravity of other celestial objects beyond a given binary orbiting system is the only acknowledged way for an orbit to not be circular.
Thus ellipticity of an orbit is simply an expression of a more complex system.
Its also a huge area of unquantified climate change.
There is a statistical relationship to the orbiting of the outer gas giants to the temperature record. It is also acknowledged as such in the literature. Pre-1980 mostly but a little has leaked through the chinese wall since.
The claims that these effects are nil because earth’s gravity is too strong is nonsense. The changes to earth’s inertia is not initially controlled by the sun because the force of gravity in a a circular orbit is perpendicular to the orbiting body and has no effect on its orbit speed.
The sun only gets a very slight control when the earth’s orbit is moved to ellipticity as the earth’s orbit at its highest ellipticity is only slightly non-circular. Where as for example Jupiter is positioned in the direct line of travel about 2 times roughly every 13 months. accelerating it once and decelerating it once. And of course that varies because the speed of jupiter varies from the forces of other planets including earth.
the sun has little to say about any of this.
Thus the definition they apply to rotation would disqualify rotations on external axes in every case as such forces that turns circular motion into non-circular motion are ubiquitous.
This imparts a universal inconsistency to their main arguments that is seemingly held by every single one of them. Its part and parcel to any argument for orbits to be arbitrarily excluded from being a rotation.
This is a complex topic.
It was only this year that I discovered its application to climate change. Most of the literature referred by what was left in the open has been repressed and not even available for purchase anywhere I can find. But its clear this means of climate change has been ignored. Monitoring data is available that shows how orbit speed changes do occur that is not consistent with the idea of an ultra slow change to the earth’s elliptical orbit from very near circular to less circular.
The 100,000 year slowly changing ellipse so often bandied around here by the orbit rotation deniers is a fraud. Its not science. They can’t support it as science. Data exists to prove its wrong. And its calculably wrong yet it gets no attention.
Exactly, Nate.
It’s still amazing that he will follow Graham D. Warner wherever he goes, even if that includes holding that the Earth does not spin. Both should collaborate on a physics textbook. They could then revise celestial mechanics, and introduce the “back and forth” motion as the absolute unit of everything.
If they don’t want to see "orbit without spin" as being "rotation about an external axis", they don’t have to. They can call it whatever they want. Or, simply call it "orbit without spin". As long as it’s understood that it’s movement like the ball on a string, where the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit, then it’s fine.
The whole point of my persisting with the "translation in a circle" and "rotation about an external axis" kinematics terms was more to try and get across the point that the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames. Once you can accept, as Nate has before and Tim did recently also, that movement like the ball on a string could potentially be described as either:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis.
And, that both these descriptions apply wrt an inertial reference frame, then you should understand that movement like the ball on a string has only one axis of rotation, whether you go for description a) or b). Once you’ve got that, then you should see that reference frames do not resolve the ball on a string issue – instead, it’s whether you go with "rotation about an external axis" or "translation in a circle" as your "base motion", that determines whether or not the ball is spinning.
With the ball on a string, the choice is made for you – objectively, it’s being swung about an external axis on the end of a string. That’s that, then. The ball on a string is objectively not spinning. Option a) is chosen for you.
For the moon, it’s more complicated, there’s more ways for them to obfuscate. Still, though, the idea of using the kinematics terms was to get across that the issue transcends reference frames, and that instead of a choice of "base motion" for the moon, the choice is whether "orbit without spin" is like the MOTL or the MOTR. However, it’s the same principle…and the idea of bringing up the kinematics terms was to teach that principle. Not to get bogged down in endless discussions about whether "orbit" is defined as "rotation about an external axis" or "translation in an ellipse".
All of points 1) – 4) were interlinked, in this way, designed to get across everything needed to understand the "Non-Spinner" argument. I don’t think they ever really got it, though.
Oh well, whatever, nevermind.
Dremt said:
Not to get bogged down in endless discussions about whether “orbit” is defined as “rotation about an external axis” or “translation in an ellipse”.
All of points 1) 4) were interlinked, in this way, designed to get across everything needed to understand the “Non-Spinner” argument. I dont think they ever really got it, though.
———————-
i agree but would add that there doesn’t seem to be any science to suggest that the moon and the earth (or any other binary orbiting system without power packs of some sort) isolated alone in their own universe would not be a perfectly circular binary orbiting system. at least i have not found any exception to that. and the spinners haven’t either.
Bill,
“i agree but would add that there doesnt seem to be any science to suggest that the moon and the earth (or any other binary orbiting system without power packs of some sort) isolated alone in their own universe would not be a perfectly circular binary orbiting system. at least i have not found any exception to that. and the spinners havent either.”
As far as I know, perfectly circular orbits do not exist.
Pluto and Charon, and Dysnomia and Eris are close. With Pluto and Charon the eccentricity is small but there needs to be no other bodies near by and it would take time to achieve a perfectly circular orbit. Lots of time.
Triton, a moon of Neptune has the lowest eccentricity in the solar system, but it’s still not zero, and not circular, but the closest.
Tidally locked moons appear to not rotate, but actually all of them do.
DREMT,
” Not to get bogged down in endless discussions about whether “orbit” is defined as “rotation about an external axis” or “translation in an ellipse”.”
It’s actually neither, so you should look it up.
And the definition has to include circular, elliptical, chaotic, and all the other flavors of orbits.
And get your head out of the kinematic textbooks and open an Astronomy one.
I’m well aware of the definition of “orbit” just being a “path”, bob. That doesn’t resolve the issue either way. You lot seem to think it resolves the issue in your favour…but then again, you always think everything resolves the issue in your favour.
bobdroege says:
”As far as I know, perfectly circular orbits do not exist.”
Well yeah. They would only exist in a universe where the gravitational influences were exactly balanced in all directions over time.
The same is true for all rotations on external axes if you really want to precondition a rotation as being a perfect circle.
DREMT,
Whatever, it resolves to the Moon rotating once per orbit, it does not matter how you define orbit, as long as you define it correctly.
Defining it as a rotation is still wrong.
Bob you haven’t give any reason why its wrong to call an orbit a rotation other than YOUR daddy told you so. Fact is DREMT has shown many scientists calling it a rotation. You are merely playing semantic games and have shown any unique reason why it shouldn’t be considered a rotation.
The ball on a string does not have two (or more!) axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame. Try to just accept that first, bob.
Bill,
Just my daddy Kepler, maybe you have heard of him?
Or all the Astronomers that have not found any objects orbiting in perfect circles.
DREMT,
“The ball on a string does not have two (or more!) axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame. Try to just accept that first, bob.”
I already have, did you not notice?
There is only one axis or rotation, it’s through the interior of the ball.
No, bob, I didn’t notice…because you say it has only one axis of rotation, then you say it also has an “axis of revolution”…even though the definition you provided states an “axis of revolution” is just an axis of rotation. So you were still saying the ball on a string has two axes of rotation. Then you said I was arguing “semantics”. That’s how we last left it.
DREMT,
A clear distinction is made in Astronomy between rotation and revolving.
Look at the red dotted lines. Note there are two of them.
If, as you say, orbits are rotations, then there are definitely two axes of rotation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Earth-Moon.PNG
Bye Bye
bob, I must have seen that diagram a hundred times. If a diagram is showing the moon has two axes of rotation, then the diagram is wrong. Simple as that. The moon does not have two axes of rotation.
Yes, there is a distinction between revolution and rotation in astronomy. OK, then…let me put it this way to you. The ball on a string does not have an “axis of revolution” and an axis of rotation. It has either an “axis of revolution” or an axis of rotation.
That is what you need to accept first. OK?
For some reason Graham D. Warner never really opined on his buddy’s idea that rotations could be non-circular. Perhaps he did not “actually dive into the literature,” as that buddy suggested?
In any event, these two claims were astonishing:
(G1) Rotation is not independent of the path as it was created by the so-called path.
(G2) Orbits are simply paths and rotations are independent of the path.
Astute readers might like to know how to reconcile them.
DREMT,
“bob, I must have seen that diagram a hundred times. If a diagram is showing the moon has two axes of rotation, then the diagram is wrong. Simple as that. The moon does not have two axes of rotation.”
So go argue with Wikipedia and every Astronomer since Cassini.
You know what that’s called?
When all the experts are wrong and you are right?
bob, it’s a mathematically proven fact that any object that’s rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis will present all of its sides to the external axis whilst it moves.
We’ve been over and over this.
You’ve been wrong for half a decade on a simple, geometrical fact.
Appealing to authority when it’s not clear if those authorities even think (or thought) the moon has two axes of rotation is not going to help your case. It’s clear they think (or thought) the moon rotates on its own internal axis, but the “two axes of rotation” claim is not clear.
DREMT,
“bob, its a mathematically proven fact that any object thats rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis will present all of its sides to the external axis whilst it moves.”
Not a proven fact, see Cassini.
> its a mathematically proven fact that any object thats rotating about both an external axis and an internal axis will present all of its sides to the external axis whilst it moves.
Graham D. Warner has still to prove the converse, and only the converse would do.
He’s also wrong, but that would deflect from his post hoc ergo propter hoc.
“Well yeah. They would only exist in a universe where the gravitational influences were exactly balanced in all directions over time.”
Newton’s solution to the 2 body gravity problem is clear. The closed orbits are elliptical.
No other bodies need to be involved.
And indeed that is what we observe.
“an axis of revolution is just an axis of rotation.”
That’s clearly wrong.
Earth revolves around the sun in the ecliptic plane. There is a perpendicular to this plane, which is the orbital axis, or axis of revolution if you want.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with Earth’s rotation.
Earth’s rotation is around a different axis tilted at 23.5 degrees to the orbital axis, and it is much faster than its revolution.
And the Moon also has an orbital axis and a rotational axis not aligned with each other.
“Their support? Few scientists have acknowledged that orbital motion qualifies as a rotation.
After that they run out of consistent arguments. Its classic my daddy never told me so”
Bill appears to be stuck at that age (16?) where his dad must be wrong about most things.
There is no daddy involved here.
We are just using definitions that have been around for centuries and have worked well for countless generations of scientists.
And again, we need to communicate with other scientists and engineers and be clearly understood when we use the words rotation, or rotate.
There is no good reason to switch to some vague, undefined notion of what you guys think ought to qualify as a rotation.
And then use the word and have others be confused about what the motion actually is.
Nate and Bob.
Both of you are just name dropping (i.e. parroting your daddy).
Kepler discovered orbits were elliptical. . .as I noted.
He also discovered:
Johannes Kepler, a German mathematician, discovered that planets sweep out equal areas in equal times while orbiting the sun. This is known as Kepler’s second law of planetary motion.
Newton in the next century established orbit motion was controlled by gravity.
But unfortunately both were dead before perturbation theory began to be developed.
Here is a nice later source for you to continue your journey in scientific knowledge.
https://sciencing.com/causes-perturbations-discovered-orbit-planet-uranus-21418.html
Perturbation theory explains small variations in the ellipticity of orbits. Later Milankovic showed it was a major cause of climate change.
So if you correctly apply without extrapolation:
1)Newton and Kepler
2) add to it the fact that the gravitational pull of the planet systems, asteroids, and perhaps even stars; you will find:
a) that the sidereal orbit time does experiences small differences in the number of days it takes for the earth to go around the sun
b)larger differences in days spent in a half orbit close to the sun versus further from the sun.
c)that it takes per Milankovic 100,000 years to finally even out.
d) later analysis found small residuals at 100,000 years that were estimated to take 400,000 plus years to resolve.
Over the past 40 some years this information has been suppressed and you have been treated like a mushroom farm. Namely, kept in the dark, and fed manure.
Nate says:
”Bill appears to be stuck at that age (16?) where his dad must be wrong about most things.”
Thats just as bad of conclusion as assuming your daddy is right about everything. . .or of that matter if you even understood the limits of what your daddy told you.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate says:
”There is no daddy involved here.
We are just using definitions that have been around for centuries and have worked well for countless generations of scientists.”
————————-
that depends upon what you actually do with the knowledge from your daddy. Auditors and Scientific Researchers have to learn to think outside of the box and in the process learn exactly where the actual borders of the box exist. Certainly not the job of a typical degreed scientist that knows enough to perhaps qualify as a teacher in the general field of physics. A student that wants to be a researcher can’t generally do that without an extended internship or academic project with a researcher.
Yes, bob, it is a proven fact:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231016085906/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566034
How many times do we need to go over the same thing?
An object that rotates around an external axis, and an internal axis, presents all of its sides to the external axis whilst it moves. An object that rotates only around an external axis, presents the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
Nate, try to pay attention. bob provided this definition, which states an “axis of revolution” is just an axis of rotation:
"Line around which an object rotates
An axis of rotation (also called an axis of revolution) is a line around which an object rotates. It is usually imaginary in calculus and physics1. When a plane figure is rotated around this axis, it creates a solid of revolution2."
“that depends upon what you actually do with the knowledge from your daddy. Auditors and Scientific Researchers have to learn to think outside of the box and in the process learn exactly where the actual borders of the box exist.”
When Bill uses financial and business terminology, I would think he would expect others in his field to understand the precise meaning of those terms, which are very likely found in textbooks.
So it is unclear why he feels the need to belittle scientists and engineers for using standard definitions of terms and expecting others in the field to understand the precise meaning of those terms, which are found in textbooks.
How would Bill react if my argument with him depended on my changing the definitions of revenue or fiduciary from their standard definitions to whatever I thought they should be mean instead!
“”Line around which an object rotates
An axis of rotation (also called an axis of revolution) is a line around which an object rotates.”
Again, DREMT takes phrases out of context and mistakes them for definitions.
Because he knows very well, that when a body rotates, its orientation changes wrt the surroundings.
Whereas when a body orbits or revolves around another body, it is following a path around the other body, and that motion need not involve any rotation (orientational change).
As I noted the Earth orbits (revolves around) the sun, no rotation of Earth is involved.
Whereas, Earth rotates around a DIFFERENT axis from that of its orbit.
I don’t see why after all this time DREMT still has trouble seeing that these are two distinct motions.
“While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation, in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
Nate, bob provided a definition of “axis of rotation”, which states that an “axis of revolution” is just an axis of rotation. You could assume that an “axis of revolution” specifically refers to an external axis, if you liked, but it would still be an axis of rotation. Make of that what you will, those are the facts.
You desperately want the definition of “orbit” being “just a path that a body follows around another” to mean “no change of orientation whilst it follows that path”; in other words, that “orbit without spin” is translation in an ellipse. Yet, it doesn’t mean that. It doesn’t say anything about the orientation of the object following the path. So, it could mean that there is no change in orientation of the body, or it could mean that there is a change in orientation of the body. You just don’t know, because orientation is left unspecified. So, the definition of “orbit” resolves nothing.
Whereas, the definition of “revolution” hints at “rotation about an external axis”, and in some definitions that is even directly stated.
On the other hand, you don’t have anything stating that either “orbit” or “revolution” means “translation in an ellipse”.
Graham D. Warner still conflates a matrix rotation with a proof that anything that could be described using that matrix rotation can only be moving using that rotation. An infinity of motions could be described using that same matrix rotation. And best of all he still ignores that Bob said simply follows from that equivalence!
Besides, that matrix cannot be used to describe the actual motion of the Moon unless he accepts the idea that any ellipse could be seen as a circle if one squirted long enough, an idea from his buddy that he still refuses to corroborate.
An object that rotates around an external axis, and an internal axis, presents all of its sides to the external axis whilst it moves. An object that rotates only around an external axis, presents the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
bob has been wrong for years on rotation, and I have been correct. Nothing in the universe can change that.
DREMT,
I’ll try once more.
“The strict definition of rotation is “the circular movement of an object about a point in space.” This is used in geometry as well as astronomy and physics. To help visualize it, imagine a point on a piece of paper. Rotate the piece of paper while it’s lying flat on the table. What’s happening is that essentially every point is rotating around the place on the paper where the point is drawn. Now, imagine a point in the middle of a spinning ball. All the other points in the ball rotate around the point. Draw a line through the center of the ball where the point lies, and that’s its axis.”
“For the kinds of objects discussed in astronomy, rotation is used to describe an object rotating about an axis. Think of a merry-go-round. It rotates around the center pole, which is the axis. Earth rotates around on its axis in the same way. In fact, so do many astronomical objects: stars, moons, asteroids, and pulsars. When the axis of rotation passes through the object it is said to spin, like that top mentioned above, on the point of the axis.
Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
From https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
And yes orbiting and rotating are independent, that means an orbit does not specify a rotation, and a rotation does not specify an orbit.
If what you wanted to try once more was to find a bunch of quotes supporting the “Non-Spinner” position then well done, bob.
While revolution is often used as a synonym for rotation”…
is a fact, make of it what you will.
“…in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis.’
is another fact, make of it what you will.
Now, there is no question that a body in orbit around another, but with fixed orientation, will still have orbital angular momentum, which is a kind of rotational motion.
What is rotating? This is a SYSTEM of two bodies, and the vector between them has an orientation, and that orientation is changing. And it has an axis. The orbital axis.
And that angular momentum, for the Moon, is way way way larger than the rotational angular momentum of the Moon by itself.
The rotational angular momentum of the Moon by itself is tiny in comparison. And it is rotation around a different axis.
It makes no sense to insist that these two motions are ONE motion, when clearly they are different and have different axes.
The moon does not have two axes of rotation.
An object that rotates around an external axis, and an internal axis, presents all of its sides to the external axis whilst it moves. An object that rotates only around an external axis, presents the same side to that external axis, whilst it moves.
The minute anyone suggests that to “orbit”, or “revolve”, is a rotation about an external axis, is the minute they concede the moon does not spin.
DREMT says:
“You desperately want the definition of orbit being just a path that a body follows around another
Not me. Astronomy defines it that way.
“to mean no change of orientation whilst it follows that path.
FALSE. I have never said that.
“in other words, that orbit without spin is translation in an ellipse.”
That is a different statement! You are trying to mix them up. Pure obfuscation.
“Yet, it doesnt mean that. It doesnt say anything about the orientation of the object following the path. So, it could mean that there is no change in orientation of the body, or it could mean that there is a change in orientation of the body. ”
Wow, now that sounds a lot like what I have been saying for years. You and I are finally in agreement!
Previously you had been consistently promoting the view that ORBIT means ‘following a path whilst keeping orientation fixed to the center’. IOW the Moon is simply orbiting.
Now it looks like you have changed your tune!
Nate exhibits multiple reading comprehension failures.
“The minute anyone suggests that to orbit, or revolve, is a rotation about an external axis, is the minute they concede the moon does not spin.”
Ignoring what I have said.
I said that a system of bodies, one orbiting the other, has angular momentum, which implies a kind of rotational motion.
Angular momentum is a vector, which is the axis around which masses are moving. For orbits that would be the orbital axis.
This orbital motion and its orbital angular momentum is entirely separate from, and independent of, any rotation of the body itself, which would be called ‘spin’ or just ‘rotation’ in astronomy.
You wish to combine what astronomy calls the ‘orbital motion’, eg of the Moon, with the spin motion, and make than one motion and call that ‘rotation around an external axis’ or ‘orbital motion’.
But that is wrong, fails to work for the Moon, because there are TWO DIFFERENT AXES.
I repeat the parts of my comments that Nate refuses to acknowledge the existence of, and which refute his every response.
DREMT,
“If what you wanted to try once more was to find a bunch of quotes supporting the Non-Spinner position then well done, bob.”
How so?
It says right off the bat that rotations are circular.
Kepler said orbits are elliptical.
Therefore the orbit of the Moon is not a rotation.
Glad we could clear that up.
Or not.
bob returns to saying “orbits are not rotations”, contradicting the earlier bob who was insisting the moon had two axes of rotation…
…and Nate wants “orbiting” to be “a kind of rotational motion” that involves an “axis”, but not rotation about an external axis, because then the moon wouldn’t be spinning!
Hilarious.
Nate says:
”I said that a system of bodies, one orbiting the other, has angular momentum, which implies a kind of rotational motion.”
—————
IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK. . . .
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Nate says:
”You wish to combine what astronomy calls the orbital motion, eg of the Moon, with the spin motion, and make than one motion and call that rotation around an external axis or orbital motion.”
———————
Nate, simply wants to call the orbiting motion of the moon two motions.
but thats because his education on this topic ended with Newton.
Perturbation theory applies universally to all motions and engineers that don’t account for them will eventually experience failure. this theory immediately started to evolve during newton’s lifetime as an adjunct/perturbation to his discovery of the major elements of a rotation.
now the less educated want to claim the elements of a rotation as two motions. . .a spin and a weird sort of rotation. the earth has two rotations evidenced by having 2 different ways of counting days. where one counts the days wrt to the sun plus the extra day wrt to the stars. they add up correctly to the number of full rotations wrt rotations wrt to the earth and (spin) and the sun (orbit). KISS
what fails to comprehend is there is no end to the deconstruction of Newton’s lunar rotation right down to every particle of the moon. . . meaning of course there are no rotations at all. . .just a simple spin of particles in space moving in weird shaped paths wrt countless imaginary axes (”kind of rotation(s)”).
nate says:
”But that is wrong, fails to work for the Moon, because there are TWO DIFFERENT AXES.”
——————–
see what i mean. he arbitrarily invents only two axes and chooses to ignore the solar tides on the moon when in fact the moon rotates around the sun as part of the earth system and also rotates around star systems as part of the solar system as nate arbitrarily selects an axis as a true rotational axis while the remainder are simply implications of ”a kind of rotational motion” because they have angular momentum.
perhaps nate should take ”subjectivity” out of his objective view of the world and get back to physics and kinematics since it should be obvious to him now just how subjective and judgmental he is being.
DREMT,
“bob returns to saying orbits are not rotations, contradicting the earlier bob who was insisting the moon had two axes of rotation”
Well, you consider that the Moon is rotating around an external axis, which is not a rotation because rotations are circular.
But you claim the Moon is rotating around only one axis, then that axis has to be through the Moon, which means you believe the Moon is rotating on an internal axis.
So, bob’s really going for the "orbits are not rotations" thing, this time. Does that mean he will never again state the moon, or a ball on a string, has two axes of rotation? If so, that would be something.
Trouble is, his own source states that an orbit is a rotation around an external axis:
"Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit."
And, Nate’s "rotation" link, from earlier, contained the following:
"A rotation around an axis completely external to the moving body is called a revolution (or orbit), e.g. Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The ends of the external axis of revolution can be called the orbital poles.[1]
Either type of rotation is involved in a corresponding type of angular velocity (spin angular velocity and orbital angular velocity) and angular momentum (spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum)."
So, if "revolution/orbit" really is a rotation around an external axis, as their own sources state, that means the moon is not rotating on its own internal axis.
Or, are they now going to say their own sources are wrong?
nate says:
”When Bill uses financial and business terminology, I would think he would expect others in his field to understand the precise meaning of those terms, which are very likely found in textbooks.
So it is unclear why he feels the need to belittle scientists and engineers for using standard definitions of terms and expecting others in the field to understand the precise meaning of those terms, which are found in textbooks.
How would Bill react if my argument with him depended on my changing the definitions of revenue or fiduciary from their standard definitions to whatever I thought they should be mean instead!”
———————-
Nate you are now trying to create a strawman. I have been clear that the moon’s rotation can be broken down into conceptual elements as detailed by Newton (spin and orbit). I am not objecting to that in any way. I am not trying to change anything regarding how you define the conceptual elements of the moon’s rotation, or in isolation how you may want to treat that rotation focusing solely on the moon.
Yet you try to manufacture out of whole cloth that the existence of more than one element of a motion means that it represents more than one independent motion.
Of course you will deny that and continue to try to claim an orbital rotation is not really a rotation when in fact DREMT just above pointed out your own sources call it a rotation.
We have you admitting its a ”kind of rotational motion” which in fact means its a rotation. Yet instead of addressing DREMTS point that the moon has only ONE rotation you continue to ignore the orbital rotation and try to come up with a thousand excuses to exclude if from being a rotation.
Of course from a debate contest approach your argument has been reduced to a pig rotating slowly on a spit above a pit fire.
You keep rotating different sides of the pig to the fire and calling them two different pigs.
You should probably just give it up.
“We have you admitting its a kind of rotational motion which in fact means its a rotation.”
No. A body in orbit is not ‘a rotation around an external axis’. Because that has a specific meaning (Madhavi), and you don’t get to redefine it to suit your argument.
Just as I don’t get to redefine revenue to suit my argument. Or do I? I’m just ‘thinking outside the box’.
As I stated, the line between the two bodies is rotating. Not the body.
“Either type of rotation is involved in a corresponding type of angular velocity (spin angular velocity and orbital angular velocity) and angular momentum (spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum).”
There you go. An orbiting body has orbital angular momentum and could also have spin angular momentum.
Orbital angular momentum arises only from the body’s translational momentum at a distance, r, from the center. Then it is mvr. The body needs no rotation!
If the body also has rotation, then that is spin angular momentum.
“So, if “revolution/orbit” really is a
rotation around an external axis”
No no no no no! That does not follow.
An elliptical orbit plainly, obviously cannot ever be ‘a rotation around an external axis’.
See Madhavi for the 47th time!
as their own sources state, that means the moon is not rotating on its own internal axis.
Here is the full quote, Nate:
"The special case of a rotation with an internal axis passing through the body’s own center of mass is known as a spin (or autorotation).[1] In that case, the surface intersection of the internal spin axis can be called a pole; for example, Earth’s rotation defines the geographical poles. A rotation around an axis completely external to the moving body is called a revolution (or orbit), e.g. Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The ends of the external axis of revolution can be called the orbital poles.[1]
Either type of rotation is involved in a corresponding type of angular velocity (spin angular velocity and orbital angular velocity) and angular momentum (spin angular momentum and orbital angular momentum)."
It clearly states that "orbital angular velocity" and "orbital angular momentum" relate to "a rotation around an axis completely external to the moving body". Not a translating body. A rotating body. So, I’m not sure why you’re saying "there you go", as if your source supports you, when it doesn’t…
…and, that’s my 10th comment of the day. So, that’s it from me until tomorrow.
Checkmate!
> We have you admitting its a “kind of rotational motion” which in fact means its a rotation.
Both buddies keep conflating pure rotation and rotation as a component of general motion. They might disagree on many other things, but they got at least this in common!
Alas, not every single rotation is a pure rotation.
There’s not a soul on the blog who has a clue what Little Willy is talking about right now. And, instead of elaborating, he’ll just accuse me of “playing dumb”.
He’s just t-word-ing.
Of course Graham D. Warner is playing dumb.
I spent years showing time and time again that he kept extrapolating from pure rotation to general motion. Take how he misconstrued what Flop was supposed to have shown. Or his recent claim that an object that spins and orbits presents all of its sides “whilst” it moves, which has been refuted many, many times already. Even his pet Truther refuted it in fact.
Or take his buddy’s recent “daddy issues” about how we should accept a more expansive conception of rotation, one that would allow ellipses to be pure rotations. Speaking of which, have we seen Graham D. Warner rubberstamp his buddy’s suggestion?
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
The colloquial use of the word ‘rotation’ to describe an orbit or a revolution obviously does not imply that an ‘orbit’ = ‘rotation around an external axis.’
For example, DREMT knows very well that the MOTR is an orbit, is a revolution, but is most certainly NOT a ‘rotation around an external axis’. That body is not rotating at all!
What an elliptical orbit or revolution has in common with ‘a rotation around an external axis’ is that
1. Both are repeating motions.
2. Both have angular momentum
What they do not have in common is
Only the ‘rotation around an external axis’ requires all parts of the body to move in concentric circles around the external axis.
“It clearly states that “orbital angular velocity” and “orbital angular momentum” relate to “a rotation around an axis completely external to the moving body”. Not a translating body.”
Well that is totally wrong.
Angular momentum is present in bodies translating past one another, with no rotation whatsoever.
The whole point of angular momentum is that it is conserved, and can produce rotation.
For example a kid translating at high speed toward the outer edge of a merry-go-round (MGR) and jumps onto it. As a result the MGR starts rotating.
Before and after have the system has the same angular momentum. This is how we can easily determine the angular velocity of the MGR.
So we know the kid in pure translation had angular momentum! And it was mvr, m =mass of kid, v = his velocity, r = his distance from the center of MGR as he jumps on.
This is standard physics. And you know I am a physicist.
Nate, movement like the MOTR could be either:
a) Rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, once per external axis rotation, in opposite directions.
b) Translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis.
Obviously, if "orbit without spin" is "rotation about an external axis", as your own source suggests, then it’s a) for a celestial body moving as per the MOTR.
> movement like the MOTR could be either
Here is the error, in a nutshell. *Any* movement can be described by a series of rotations and translations. There’s no either-or that holds.
That is how Graham D. Warner conflates general motion and pure rotation. And this is why his pet GIF as always been pure bait.
About all I can follow from Little Willy’s comments is that he’s falsely accused me of misconstruing Ftop_t’s proof, and has misrepresented me by saying I claimed “an object that spins and orbits presents all of its sides “whilst” it moves”. Perhaps he could quote what I actually said, and try to appreciate the difference.
DREMT,
When a source says a rotation about an external axis is a revolution or orbit.
He is not saying an orbit is a rotation.
For example
All runners are athletes
does not mean
All athletes are runners.
The example given in Nate’s source was the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. As far as I’m aware, that’s an elliptical orbit. So, according to Nate’s source, an elliptical orbit can be a rotation around an external axis. But, you’re all deeply in denial about what Nate’s source said, as well as your own, bob.
What was your point again, exactly?
” So, according to Nates source, an elliptical orbit can be a rotation around an external axis. ”
FALSE. Quote that.
As I mentioned there are colloquial uses of the word rotation, particularly in publicly edited Wikipedia.
DREMT knows very well that there are plenty of orbits that are not ‘rotations around an external axis’, such as the MOTR.
So obviously any claim that an orbit is ‘a rotation around an external axis’ contradicts what DREMT already KNOWS.
And he also knows very well how a ‘rotation around an external axis’ has all parts of the body moving in concentric circles around the axis, according to HIS source, Madhavi.
And every other textbook discussing Rigid Body Dynamics agrees with this definition.
So his present approach to this argument seems to be: just play dumb.
And that makers it a dead end argument.
As usual, Nate’s method of debate is to avoid quoting the sentences of my comments that refute the points he makes. As one example, he yells “FALSE” and demands that I quote his source saying that an elliptical orbit can be a rotation around an external axis. Yet he didn’t quote from my comment where I pointed out that the example they use for an orbit (which they explicitly state is a rotation around an external axis) is the Earth around the Sun, which is an elliptical orbit!
Then he repeats his point about the MOTR, which I already refuted, without quoting from the comment refuting it!
> For example, DREMT knows very well that the MOTR is an orbit, is a revolution, but is most certainly NOT a rotation around an external axis. That body is not rotating at all!
YAHTZEE!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1686623
“and demands that I quote his source saying that an elliptical orbit can be a rotation around an external axis.”
Yes, where is it?
“Yet he didnt quote from my comment where I pointed out that the example they use”
Again, for the umpteenth time, an example is not a definition!
I don’t know why DREMT finds this concept so difficult.
“for an orbit (which they explicitly state is a rotation around an external axis) is the Earth around the Sun, which is an elliptical orbit!”
For the umpteenth time, Wikipedia is publicly edited. And there is much colloquial usage of the word rotate. It is not a textbook on rigid body dynamics.
Yet DREMT is quite familiar with one. Madhavi. And it does not agree, at all, period.
And for some reason he keeps ignoring this source in favor of Wikipedia, which can be edited by any ijit.
Then he repeats his point about the MOTR, which I already refuted, without quoting from the comment refuting it!
More denial, more excuses. He keeps muttering about “colloquial” usage even though it’s an article on rotation and it specifically says that “rotation about an external axis” is “revolution” or “orbit”. Nothing “colloquial” about it. He just can’t stand it! So he mentions Madhavi, which says nothing at all about “orbits” or “revolution”. Just going on and on about the “rotation has to be circular” thing, no doubt.
In the end, it simply doesn’t matter:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1685849
“So he mentions Madhavi, which says nothing at all about orbits or revolution. Just going on and on about the rotation has to be circular thing, no doubt”
Yes it clearly defines ‘rotation around and external axis’ in a way that is not consistent with elliptical orbits, or orbits containing NO rotation at all such as the MOTR.
As do all other such textbooks on Rigid Body Dynamics.
But when a publicly edited Wikipedia article gives an example inconsistent with these textbook definitions, DREMT chooses to believe the Wikipedia article!
Even though the article is internally inconsistent stating that in Astronomy ‘rotation’ is not applied to orbits or revolutions, only to the axial rotations of bodies.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1686623
In the end, it simply doesn’t matter:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1685849
Nate has completely ceased to make a kinematics or physics case for what an orbit is and is now 100% talking about what his daddy told him it is.
“In the end, it simply doesnt matter”
Which is an admission that the argument he has been pushing for days is a losing one.
Not at all. In fact, the argument has already been won that way. Your only counter is to keep pushing a strict definition of rotation being circular, as if that somehow means “orbits are translations” should be accepted as “correct” by default. But, you actually have nothing. Not a single reference saying “orbits are translations”. Not even a reference saying “orbits are motion of the CoM”!
It just doesn’t matter, though, because you don’t even have to think “orbits are rotations” to know that the “Non-Spinners” are correct. The whole “kinematics” approach is simply there to help get across the basic principle that reference frames do not resolve the moon issue. You get that, right? As in, you must finally understand what my point 3) means, and that it is correct. Yes?
When an engineer or scientist gives instructions, e.g. ‘rotate the triangle 120 degrees around a point’ that instruction has no ambiguity. Because all scientists and engineers KNOW precisely what that means!
Here is the first quote from a link FTOP used to explain what a ‘rotation’ is.
“Rotation” means turning around a center:
The distance from the center to any point on the shape stays the same.
Every point makes a circle around the center”
https://web.archive.org/web/20231216174944/https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/rotation.html
So FTOP obviously agrees.
All of his graphical tools agree with this. When he tells it to ‘rotate’ the triangle 60 degrees around a point, every point on the triangle makes a circle around the center. The distance from the center to any point on the shape stays the same!
If saying ‘rotate the triangle around a point’ is a motion that allows points on the triangle to move further away from the axis, then engineers will be confused about what to do! The instruction is no longer clear and unambiguous.
See what I mean? It’s just the same thing over and over again. He just doesn’t listen to a word you say to him.
As a matter of fact, Ftop_t didn’t agree, and actually used Desmos to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical pattern.
But, it really doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter! So, why are we still talking about the “orbits are rotations” thing? I already explained that it’s not necessary for “orbits to be rotations”, for the “Non-Spinners” to be correct.
“But, it really doesnt matter. It just doesnt matter!”
None of these arguments really matter. Science will carry on doing what has worked for centuries.
The only difference here is that you have realized this is a losing argument. And thus need an excuse to exit it.
My last post shows more evidence, it just keeps piling up!
Yet you keep denying this reality.
All you have to do is acknowledge that you were incorrect.
“As a matter of fact, Ftop_t didnt agree, and actually used Desmos to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical pattern.”
No. He programmed Desmos to perform a quasi-elliptical motion, that did not actually move like a planet in an orbit. It did not speed up at perihelion as real orbits do.
Then he called that a ‘rotation’.
So what? Is he a noted authority on this subject?
Any dude on this blog can declare their own truth, as he did there. He did not have a sound rationale.
But his posts are inconsistent. He linked to source that explained what a rotation is, and it made clear that it is circular motion!
He used graphical tools with commands such as ‘rotate the triangle around point P’, and always ALWAYS that resulted in a concentric circular motion of all points on the triangle.
Because there is simply no ambiguity about what the word ‘rotate’ means in science and engineering.
“None of these arguments really matter. Science will carry on doing what has worked for centuries.”
Not what I meant, as you know.
“The only difference here is that you have realized this is a losing argument. And thus need an excuse to exit it.”
False. See my previous comments.
“My last post shows more evidence, it just keeps piling up!”
Not at all. You just keep repeating yourself, and not listening to me.
“Yet you keep denying this reality. All you have to do is acknowledge that you were incorrect.”
Denying what reality? What am I incorrect about? You are the one denying:
a) What your own source states.
b) That I’ve already explained that the “orbits are rotations” thing is simply not a big deal to the “Non-Spinner” argument.
“No. He programmed Desmos to perform a quasi-elliptical motion, that did not actually move like a planet in an orbit. It did not speed up at perihelion as real orbits do. Then he called that a ‘rotation’.”
Nice goalpost shift. All he needed was to show that an object can rotate about an external axis in an elliptical pattern. That’s exactly what he showed. If Desmos allows that, maybe it suggests rotations can be elliptical?
“But his posts are inconsistent. He linked to source that explained what a rotation is, and it made clear that it is circular motion! He used graphical tools with commands such as ‘rotate the triangle around point P’, and always ALWAYS that resulted in a concentric circular motion of all points on the triangle.”
Apart from the time he rotated it in an elliptical pattern.
Also, you’re aware that you can combine “rotation about an external axis” with “rotation about an internal axis”, right? It doesn’t have to always be movement like the MOTL. For instance, you can add clockwise rotation about an internal axis to anticlockwise rotation about an external axis and get movement like the MOTR, yes?
> All [Flop] needed was to show that an object can rotate about an external axis in an elliptical pattern.
Which he failed, for his trick broke isometry.
What is Graham D. Warner still doing here?
Of course it “broke isometry”, it was an elliptical pattern. It’s like you’re asking him to rotate an object in an elliptical pattern whilst making sure it’s a circular pattern! Your complaint has never made any sense.
I’m “still here” because I said I would leave when people stopped responding to me. They can’t stop responding to me. So here I still am.
“All he needed was to show that an object can rotate about an external axis in an elliptical pattern. Thats exactly what he showed”
Exactly how did he show that?
And how can computer program prove a definition wrong?
Makes zero sense.
Maybe it proves that there is no need to desperately and obsessively hold to one specific detail of a definition like your entire life depended on it. Perhaps it proves that some mental flexibility is allowed. Possibly even encouraged!
So its clear that you cannot tell us how he did it. No need for you to know that for you to believe him?
“Maybe it proves that there is no need to desperately and obsessively hold to one specific detail of a definition like your entire life depended on it.”
I proudly admit that I live in the world of facts and sound logic. How bout you?
“Perhaps it proves that some mental flexibility is allowed. Possibly even encouraged!”
Sure if you realize that the facts do not support your argument, then make those facts ‘flexible’.
"So its clear that you cannot tell us how he did it. No need for you to know that for you to believe him?"
I can’t remember, Nate. It was years ago. I tried to look again recently using the "wayback machine" but the Desmos links no longer work, sadly. That’s a shame, as Ftop_t really put a lot of work into proving his points.
"I proudly admit that I live in the world of facts and sound logic. How bout you?"
Sure you do, Nate. Sure you do.
"Sure if you realize that the facts do not support your argument, then make those facts ‘flexible’."
The definition of "rotation" does not make or break the "Non-Spinner" position, Nate. As I’ve tried to tell you numerous times, but you’re not listening. "Orbit without spin" is movement in which the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit. Could be elliptical, could be circular. If you don’t want to call that "rotation about an external axis" for elliptical orbits, then don’t. Just stick to "orbit without spin".
“If you dont want to call that “rotation about an external axis” for elliptical orbits, then dont. Just stick to “orbit without spin”.”
Not just me. Everyone in science and engineering expects the words ‘rotate’ and ‘rotation’ to have a precise meaning.
Otherwise totally unnecessary confusion would ensue, when these words are used!
If you say so, Nate. Will that be eternally all?
Orbit without spin” is movement in which the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit. Could be elliptical”
What does ‘faces inside of the orbit’ mean ? No longer points to the Earth?
This is vague, how does one predict where that face will point at anytime during the the orbit?
How many axes of rotation does a ball on a string have, Nate? One, or two?
Astute readers might need to recall:
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Neither the hammer nor the thrower are “spinning”
which implies that, according to his logic, that the Earth does not spin!
The thrower is just rotating about the barycenter, the Earth is rotating about the barycenter and spinning.
According to Graham D. Warner, Ethan is NOT spinning here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYEQAb61QZE
Astute readers might wonder then what Ethan’s body does at the beginning and at the end of his throw.
This makes it perfectly clear, Little Willy:
https://tinyurl.com/the-hammer-throw
The barycentre is closer to the thrower, so it may look like they are spinning. The axis of rotation does not pass through their centre, though. It passes through the barycentre. Both thrower and hammer are rotating about that single, shared axis.
That is my ten comments for the day.
Anyone flexible enough could get that the GIF is a very basic model of what Ethan does. At the beginning, he mostly twirls his arms around, not unlike with Graham’s pet ball on string. And at the end, we clearly see Ethan’s body spin after he released the hammer.
By Graham’s logic, the Earth does not really spin – it is fixed around the Solar system’s barycenter…
I asked the questions:
“What does faces inside of the orbit mean ? No longer points to the Earth?
This is vague, how does one predict where that face will point at anytime during the the orbit?”
And your answer is:
“How many axes of rotation does a ball on a string have, Nate? One, or two?”
When challenged to answer questions about the Bailey, return to the safety of the Motte!
Hint: Librations are easily explained by the Spinner model.
No, Little Willy, that is not by my logic – as I already explained.
Nate, I’m just trying to get the thread back on topic. It’s not a good look when even Little Willy is more on topic than you are. I could re-answer your questions, and “do the libration dance” for the thirtieth time, but it would be a lot more interesting if you could answer the question I asked you weeks ago, further up-thread, and get things back on track…
So, wrt an inertial reference frame, how many axes of rotation does a ball on a string have? One, or two?
This subthread is actually about dismissing Cassini’s work because he was an astrologer.
So once again Graham D. Warner evades Nate’s question for no good reason.
Get real, Little Willy. I’m the one you’re all obsessed with, and my original point was that bob is not fit to declare himself a teacher, since he has been wrong for half a decade on something as simple as the number of axes of rotation that a ball on a string has. It would be nice if Nate could at least get one relevant comment in.
Looks like Binny did not fall for the Cassini bait once, but twice:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1687530
In fairness, the second time he himself injected it!
You took us off the topic from the BOS.
“Orbit without spin” is movement in which the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit. Could be elliptical, could be circular.”
As usual, must’ve been an oops, because you can’t/won’t defend it, and need to succry back to the safety of the BOS!
And no, you guys have NEVER made a rationale argument explaining Librations from the non-spinner POV.
Librations for our Moon support the Spinner approach in two ways.
-The lunar rotation angular velocity is fixed while the orbital angular velocity is variable, proving that they are not ‘one single orbital motion’
-The rotation is around an axis tilted wrt the orbital axis. This can only be possible if the rotation is around an axis thru the Moon.
“You took us off the topic from the BOS.”
The permanent internet record shows that not to be the case, Nate. You have been pushing the discussion as far away from the ball on a string as you can, since you began responding to me. You wish to move the discussion on to things like libration (your motte) and avoid any of the difficult questions that relate to the ball on a string (your bailey).
Answering the question is a problem for you for two reasons:
1) An honest answer means Ball4 and bob are thrown under the bus, exposed as having been wrong for years on a simple issue, despite claiming they are here to teach.
2) You know where it leads if you give an honest answer…eventually you have to concede the ball on a string is objectively not spinning. Then we’re back on to viable physical models of “orbit without spin”, and you’re seriously in trouble.
“Orbit without spin is movement in which the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit. Could be elliptical, could be circular.
So we’re just going to have to set aside these kinds of remarks as ‘stuff that DREMT says but is unable to defend.’
Because all you want to ever discuss is the BOS, which only effectively models a ball on a string.
So, wrt an inertial reference frame, how many axes of rotation does a ball on a string have? One, or two?
“So, wrt an inertial reference frame, how many axes of rotation does a ball on a string have? One, or two?”
Our Moon has an internal axis of rotation, tilted wrt to its orbital axis. TWO DIFFERENT AXES.
The BOS has nothing to say about these facts about our Moon. Nothing useful at all!
I said axes of rotation, Nate. Or are you now saying you think the moon rotates about an external axis!?
You will say anything to protect the others.
Look it is plainly obvious that you will avoid talking about our Moon anymore, because it is a no-win argument.
So you need to distract from it, with irrelevant discussion of anything but the Moon!
How bout your favorite Taylor Swift song?
I literally just talked about the moon, Nate. Our moon does not have two axes of rotation. “Synchronous rotation” is a misnomer.
“I said axes of rotation, Nate.”
I said orbital axis.
YOU have maintained an orbit is a rotation! Can’t make up your mind?
Nate, please stop being ridiculous.
1) Do you think our moon has two axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame? Yes or no?
2) Do you think a ball on a string has two axes of rotation, wrt an inertial reference frame? Yes or no?
I don’t need to see anything else from you besides your one-word answer to each question. Thank you.
“I dont need to see anything else from you besides your one-word answer to each question. Thank you.”
Sounds more like a ‘want’ then a ‘need’.
And why should I care what you want?
What WE ALL want from you is evidence to support your years long claim that our Moon does not spin. Any evidence at all!
But we know that won’t be forthcoming.
And we understand that everything else about the stoopid BOS is a distraction from this main issue.
Answer the questions, or stop responding. Your choice. All I’m going to do from now until you either answer, or stop responding, is to repeat the request over and over again.
New Mars study suggests an ocean’s worth of water may be hiding beneath the red dusty surface
https://www.koat.com/article/study-suggests-water-may-be-hiding-beneath-mars/61856141
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
“CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla.
Mars may be drenched beneath its surface, with enough water hiding in the cracks of underground rocks to form a global ocean, new research suggests.
The findings released Monday are based on seismic measurements from NASAs Mars InSight lander, which detected more than 1,300 marsquakes before shutting down two years ago.
This water believed to be seven miles to 12 miles down in the Martian crust most likely would have seeped from the surface billions of years ago when Mars harbored rivers, lakes and possibly oceans, according to the lead scientist, Vashan Wright of the University of California San Diegos Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Just because water still may be sloshing around inside Mars does not mean it holds life, Wright said.
Instead, our findings mean that there are environments that could possibly be habitable,” he said in an email.”
It seems to me, the main reason to explore the Moon and Mars, is to understand Earth.
It seems to me, if US govt spend billions or trillion dollar trying to explore Earth, they would fail badly- just they have spent billions of dollars to study “climate change” and have failed badly.
We have studied “climate change” for centuries, without any goverental funding, and one could claim “some” progress was made, but rather than “help” governmental funding has frozen the effort.
But US govt does Cold war PR stunt to land of a man of the Moon, and all kinds of stuff is discovered about Earth.
A question is why does Earth have an ocean. It wasn’t that long ago, that it was assumed all planets and our Moon had oceans. And comparatively recent, that Mars had canals.
It seems generally, the reason why Earth has an ocean is because of global plate tectonics. And that it’s assumed most of the body Earth is quite dry. And the theory of plate tectonics, is new {in terms of a accepted theory, and it followed the Apollo program. Other new “theories” is Earth gets impacted by small space rocks {not something that was accepted]. And also huge space rocks given enough time, also impact Earth.
One could ask, whether NASA can explore the Moon. And other part of question, can NASA explore the Moon, then explore Mars.
What I think is significant about exploring the Moon, is can NASA do this {which is quite easy} and follow up with something harder, exploring Mars.
Or if NASA can’t explore the Moon, it will be proven, it can’t explore Mars.
More bad journalism, this time about a hypothesized underground ocean on Mars
https://behindtheblack.com/
Robert doesn’t like it.
I generally assume, we don’t have a clue
“What I think is significant about exploring the Moon, is can NASA do this {which is quite easy} and follow up with something harder, exploring Mars.”
NASA has been exploring Mars for several decades.
Most recently by the Perseverance rover, which has been persevering in its exploration of Mars for 3 years.
I think the title of this post is wrong. It should read: Festivus Celebration. That would be very descriptive. We have the following: Airing of Grievances, Feats of Strength (virtual of course), and Festivus Miracles (claims of things that not scientifically possible).
Am I making a statement of sarcasm or irony? I am not sure.
Calm down people. I have a sense of humor.
To all those who tend to believe the nonsense that a few Zharkovists are constantly spreading about an imminent Grand Solar Minimum:
Please be careful, especially if you live in Western Europe; our supposedly weak sun is extremely aggressive these days.
I have never used so much sunscreen material as this year.
Bindiclown’s science
Says the constantly abusive dachshund (which is why I gave him this name, as his behavior in this blog reminds me of that type of dog).
Heil Freedom of Speech!
Actually, Zharkova said there would more intense sunlight.
And she talking about cooling in the further future.
But nobody has been very accurate about weather in the future.
Which reminds me. What hurricane situation?
1/2 way thru August, and we might get some later.
Got, Ernesto tropical storm, and nothing on my side, now.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
Anyhow, it’s suppose to turn into a hurricane
Would you please provide a citation of her claiming “there will be more intense sunlight”.
It was related to a paper in terms earth orbit and getting closer to sun, and thereby earth getting more sunlight, and related to Sun going around it’s barycenter.
Everyone knows this, but publishers, didn’t. She would endless complain about.
In terms of everyone, sunlight at Earth distances is:
1,413 1,321 watts per square meter
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
I mean it’s quite that simple, and everyone knows this.
“I mean its quite that simple, and everyone knows this.”
I mean its *not* quite that simple, and everyone knows this.
I generally say it’s about 1360 watts. At around Earth distance and in the vacuum space.
Also it didn’t post the hyphen:
1,413 – 1,321 watts per square meter.
‘Would you please provide a citation of her claiming there will be more intense sunlight.’
Think about what happens when the sun is more active. Higher UV and higher XRay; more intense sunlight.
Ken
Zharkova predicted that the sun would be LESS active.
gbaikie
Except the earth is NOT getting closer to the sun.
It is more like shift in seasonal distance timing
https://tinyurl.com/4fetk8nt
‘Zharkova predicted that the sun would be LESS active.’
She is showing solar is cyclical, sometimes more and sometimes less active. Projection is cooling over the next few decades followed by warming to higher levels as now.
For people who rather want to get informed than to follow simple-minded guesses, here is a real example explaining the ‘shift in seasonal distance timing’ and over which periods of time it matters:
Earth-sun distance dramatically alters seasons in equatorial Pacific in a 22,000-year cycle
https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/11/09/earth-sun-distance-dramatically-alters-seasons-in-equatorial-pacific-in-a-22000-year-cycle/
–Antonin Qwerty says:
August 14, 2024 at 3:48 AM
gbaikie
Except the earth is NOT getting closer to the sun.–
It seems we know that the Moon is getting further from Earth.
I am not sure, if we likewise “know” Earth is getting closer or further from the Sun.
But we “know” Earth’s orbit around the Sun, completely controls global climate- and CO2 levels “don’t”.
A tropical storm appears to have split over Puerto Rico into two storms.
D. Atmospheric CO2 Is Now Heavily Saturated, Which in Physics Means More CO2 Will Have Little Warming Effect.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lindzen-Happer-Koonin-climate-science-4-24.pdf
It just means the effect is logarithmic.
For each doubling of CO2 the effect on warming is halved.
So if the first doubling since pre-industrial (280-560 ppm) results in, say, ~2C warming, then the next doubling (560-1120 ppm) will result in only a further ~1C warming.
The warming will still continues, just at a reduced rate.
Can you show how CO2 can warm Earth’s surface, from principles of physics?
Or are you just mesmerized by the word “logarithmic”?
Not quite.
Each doubling produces the same amount of warming.
If a doubling from 280-560 ppm produced 2C warming, the next doubling from 560-1120 ppm would also produce 2C warming.
What is halved is the effect of each quantity of CO2.
For the first doubling adding 280ppm produces 2C. For the second doubling it would take the addition of twice as much CO2, 560ppm, to produce the next 2C.
The “nail” got both the physics and the math wrong.
Ent at least got the math right.
But, the math means nothing when the physics is wrong….
The perfect example of an alarmist claim:
Op. Cit.
Let’s hope news media do not pick up on that kind of claim, for they do not understand how speculative it is.
“The recent experience in Sri Lanka which eliminated the use of nitrogen fertilizer is unfortunately another example of net zero ideology trumping science. Sri Lankan President Rajapaksa in April 2021 banned the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ordered the countrys 2 million farmers to go organic.14 The result was disastrous. Its rice production has dropped more than 50%, while domestic rice prices have increased more than 80%.15 This is a real-life warning of the worldwide disaster that would result from eliminating fossil fuels.”
Not exactly alarmist when the facts fully support the claim.
Turning “another example” (there was no real other example) into “the facts” is doing most of the alarmist lifting here.
The Canadian Fertilizer Ban
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMG4kuEN_kM
The Revolution of German Farmers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR2Yx7jV-H8
Dutch farmer protest: ‘Controlling the food supply is the best way to control people’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R2CdtLWGFk&t=4s
More fear mongering tactics presented as evidence, please.
The Insane Paris Climate Accord – Dr Roger Bezdek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxJfwWiherg&t=185s
ICLEI is a disastrous policy that every level of government is implementing. The buzzwords, ‘sustainability’ ’15 minute cities’ etc, all sound great on the surface but have massive sinister implications for rights and freedoms.
https://icleicanada.org/
Chris Sky explains 15 Minute City
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4ae9pPGx-s
The Revolution of German Farmers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR2Yx7jV-H8
Ken
For someone who has lived in Germany for over 50 years, this YouTube session is pure manipulation.
The vast majority of farmers have nothing in common with what Jordan Peterson dares to yutjub in their name.
*
You are simply naive enough not to understand that your Peterson boy is only talking about a minority of huge agricultural corporations that are shamelessly destroying German soil and groundwater resources in favor of unbridled meat production.
What do you plan to eat if the ‘unbridled meat production’ is ended?
Our meat food is less than 3-5 % of what we eat and we don’t really need it.
You, Ken, do.
I’d be very surprised to find that any of the ‘meat food’ is wasted; there is a demand for the product.
If people don’t have access to the ‘meat food’ they will want other food … which will put pressure on those crops.
Long overdue, Roy. I’m sure I speak for many when I say that we so enjoy having this forum, but it can be a little soul destroying to see someone attack a person because they have no argument to oppose the statement made.
The lid is off.
This is the most organized I’ve seen the Polar Vortex in years.
https://postimg.cc/FYvXQMX3
Comment count in 2024 threads.
1. W1llard 5847
2. Swens0n 4563
3. DREMT 3833
4. Nate 2407
5. G0rd0n 1738
6. Cl1nt 1615
7. B1ll Hunter 1396
8. B1nd1don 1135
9. b0bdr0ege 1121
10. gba1k1e 1102
11. Ball4 871
12. Ant0n1n Qwerty 709
13. Chr1st0s V0urnas 707
14. Barry 606
15. walterh03 603
16. RLH 555
17. T1m F0lkerts 538
18. Ell10tt B1gnell 530
19. Entr0p1c Man 529
20. Arkady Ivan0v1ch 518
21. E. Swans0n 422
22. Ireneusz Palm0wsk1 383
23. T1m S 305
24. bdgwx 298
25. N0rman 257
26. Ken 256
27. Eben 190
28. Stephen P Anders0n 162
29. J0hn W 122
30. Cra1g T 104
The aim of the first three is to stomp on all conversation.
Same animal, different clothing.
AQ made 42 comments so far in the thread, most of them playing the ref or asking for room service. Including the last one, and also the rant in which we can read:
(AQ) One thing I find very distasteful is this continual addressing of people in the third person.
I presume he acquired a new taste.
***
Also, AQ’s conclusion isn’t supported by his accounting alone. It also omits that we entered a new regime recently. Now that MF and GR left us for greener pastures, suddenly AQ wrote more than twice my number of comments in the last open thread.
Which goes on to show that no good deed goes unpunished.
In the first thread post Flynn, you made 99 comments to my 3.
Who was it who referred to special pleading?
Their presence does not cause anyone to make 1300+ posts in a month, mostly fluff. That comes from an obsession for having the last word, something you NEVER concede in a two-way contest.
I thought you had learned what “addressing someone in the third person” means. Looks like I was wrong. Your comment has it, mine doesn’t. Trump university?
I again grant you your obsession, on the house. Perhaps you will surprise me by being a big man and ignoring me. But I highly doubt it – you’re too insecure.
I’m not a real moderator. Real moderators are able to just delete any comments they feel like, on a whim, to indulge their fantasies of having some sort of control over other people. Real moderators are here to censor, and suppress freedom of expression. I’m just having a bit of fun. When I write “please stop t-word-ing,” it doesn’t actually have any effect. People are still able to say whatever they want to say, and it will be posted and there for posterity, no matter how many times I repeat my “please stop t-word-ing”.
I think what people are really upset about by the “please stop t-word-ing” is…they don’t get to have the last word.
^^ My impersonator strikes again ^^
YOUR impersonator … hahaha … what a joke. Karma strikes.
Yes, my impersonator. I have somebody who posts comments under my name. Nobody else would put up with it, but there you go. I am a nice guy, so I let it slide.
It is NOT your name.
Perhaps AQ missed when I asked him to stop pretending that we’re in speaking terms.
Special pleading would be to respond to “Now that MF and GR left us for greener pastures” to “in the first thread post MF” while forgetting to mention that GR was in that thread, throwing a tantrum. Not that there isn’t anything special about MF or GR. For instance, in that thread we can read:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/an-unusually-warm-year-or-two-cannot-be-blamed-on-climate-change/#comment-1681487
That’s about half of Graham D. Warner’s comments there.
Of the 1608 comments in that July thread, Graham D. Warner made 376, GR made 119. Many being mere verbal abuse directed at me, after which he disappeared. And then there’s Puffman, whose number of comments are in the same order as GR.
Add these three together and we reach 605 comments. That’s something like 37% of the comments.
Who wrote the remaining comments? The usual suspects: Bob and Nate with 136 each, I had 99, Binny 88 (inauspicious), Tim 84, Richard 66 (almost inauspicious), Christos 61, EM 59, gb 46.
That’s a grand total of 1380 comments. I will let others account for the remaining 300 comments {1}. Now, put gb, Richard, and Christos on the contrarian side {2}, and we get 376 + 66 + 61 + 46 = 549 comments. Compare that number to Team Science’s side, where we have 136 + 136 + 99 + 88 + 84 = 543 comments.
Now, there are many ways to interpret this result. Could be a coincidence. Could be that people who interact tend to pair up comments. The last hypothesis is reinforced by the fact that Graham establishes some kind of comment parity with his PSTering.
Lots of theories.
***
To see the dynamic in action at a smaller scale, take Binny’s comment after which MoonBall got resurrected:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1683142
Then follows 43 comments. Out of the 322 comments in this thread about Roy’s policy. I won’t count who replies to whom. Astute readers already get the idea.
Alternatively, one might wish to compare AQ’s comments with mine, and see how our mutual numbers converge now that he has set himself as Roy’s Hall Monitor.
{1} I apologize if I miss anyone else with more than 50 comments.
{2} We could put gb in his class of its own, as Roy’s free particle.
My aim is not to stomp on all conversation – I just seem to attract a lot of people keen to respond to me, so end up in lengthy back and forths.
That is NOT what explains your high comment count, and you know it.
How many PSTs, then?
DREMT is one of the most polite commenters here. He’s both polite AND patient.
I’m polite, but nowhere as patient. I tend to lose patience with people that refuse to grow up. Someone that ignores reality is a child. And, I respond accordingly….
How am I supposed to distinguish between you and Flynn in a count of PSTs?
I just did a brute-force count of your posts in the May Temperature report, and 43% of your posts were PSTs. This included interrupting posts that were purely about science. You complain about moderation, yet you insist on doing your own personal proxy moderation.
The majority of my comments are part of long back and forths between multiple commenters and myself. Prove me wrong.
“Majority” means 51%.
My count shows you are doing slightly better than that.
I would estimate I made 800 PSTs this year. Leaving just over 3000 comments as due to what I am claiming they are due to.
“I would estimate”
Why would anyone believe you?
II guess they wouldn’t, because a lot of people only see the PSTs. That’s because they maybe don’t even realise how involved I get in discussions that are happening "up-thread", out of sight of where the comments have currently got to. For example, I doubt anyone’s even aware that there is still a heated discussion going on between Ball4, Nate and myself on one of the older articles that everyone else has moved on from.
If my percentage of PSTs is really at 42% then that would be 1600 PSTs, or about 200 per month. That seems too high from my recollection, although I certainly could be wrong. 100 a month seems more in line with what I think I’ve done.
Like I said; I could be wrong, but it’s an honest estimate. I’ll let someone driven by their intense hatred and desire to prove me wrong about anything, ever, do the actual counting.
You mean driven by a desire to get this site cleaned up.
Done the count and found it was close to 800, then, Antonin?
“I guess they wouldn’t”
The truth comes out.
The truth is, my genuine estimate is 800. Feel free to prove me wrong instead of just insinuating I’m a liar all the time.
Nice job putting this list together, AQ. Maybe in a couple of months or at the end of the year, we can see an updated version of this list.
I remember when DREMT posted a comment complaining about being impersonated. Dr Spencer wrote a reply suggesting that someone pretending to be a moderator should not complain about someone pretending to be him (words to that effect).
More to the point, I would be interested to see a word count ratio if that is possible. Number of posts / number of words. Many of those high number posts are just short insults back and forth using their favorite pet names for each other. GR would be just the opposite with a huge word count per post.
Any one of you would be up in arms if somebody posted using your screen name.
I was convinced for a long time that you were real and rather rude for a mod. You are the prime example of how much people can get away with on this site. You have no basis for complaint. You do not own the user name unless Dr Spencer wants you to own it. Your complaint is with him alone.
Thanks, but I’m a good person.
Any one of you would be up in arms if somebody posted using your screen name.
> Dr Spencer wrote a reply
Here:
http://tinyurl.com/roy-speaks-to-graham-d-warner
Emphasis on the operative word.
In that thread, Graham wrote 821 comments. He PSTered 59 times. Which may not be representative. In this thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/new-article-on-climate-models-vs-observations/#comments
there are 24 comments by Graham D. Warner, all PSTs, most of them belated.
You can all relax. I won’t be commenting for much longer, anyway. I have other things going on in my life right now and this is one of the things that has to go. I’m sure I’ll check in from time to time, just to make sure you’re all behaving yourselves.
So, Little Willy, Antonin – you can drop the incredibly transparent attempts to try to get me banned. I’m leaving soon, anyway. OK? You can celebrate in your “alarmist/warmist” echo chamber that you’ve always wanted. You can all spend your days debating exactly how bad things are going to be.
Have fun.
DREMT, in my teamwork training and on-the-job experience, we are taught not to take ownership of our comments. Realize this would be in a problem solving environment, but the concept is that an idea is put on the table without ownership and open to debate of all kinds. That improves participation so that shy people will not fear rejection and it promotes open discussion because you criticize the idea without criticizing the person. It works only if the idea was put on the table without prejudice or cheer leading that it has to the best idea. The group will decide by consensus (not here they won’t — LOL). That is the way I try to operate here and why I can usually just walk away from rude or incompetent comments.
Good luck!
TimS, the reason you keep blowing your own horn is because you have NO science
But, please continue.
“Im leaving soon, anyway. OK? You can celebrate in your alarmist/warmist echo chamber that youve always wanted.”
Because Spencer is watching, and you know it will be much harder to get away with your usual antics.
Wrong, John W. Not why I’m leaving, and I don’t get up to any “antics” for Dr Spencer to worry about anyway.
DREMT
The quote from Dr Spencer that you have been presented with shows that claim to be false.
If you say so, Antonin.
What do you not understand about “Somebody is impersonating me again. Not sure why that’s deemed to be acceptable.” ?
Do you need a word explained?
As those were my words, not Dr Spencer’s, I don’t need any of them explained, Antonin.
In answer to Dr Spencer’s point, the difference is:
1) I never thought people would actually believe I was a real moderator. There is no genuine imitation attempt being made.
2) People’s screen names are part of their online identity. If anyone can just post as anyone else, it completely undermines the entire functioning of the blog.
There is no need to think that when Roy used the word *impersonate* he believed that Graham D. Warner was fooling anyone. Only that it does not connote a Good Thing. The obvious implication is that Graham ought to stop. But then Graham has been resisting the most obvious implications since the time he started to comment here, under various sock puppets.
These people never concede anything, or ever apologise, for their mistakes. They just drift off to another thread to falsely accuse you of something else. Where’s Antonin to acknowledge he got it wrong?
Graham D. Warner has no real response to the evidence and the analysis offered, and so he tries to burden me with what AQ said.
It would be interesting to know why he commented under DREMT at Ed Berrys.
I was actually just trying to ignore you, not “burden” you with what Antonin said. I agree that Dr Spencer is implying that impersonating a member of his “moderation team” is not a good thing, but as I already said, there is no genuine attempt to impersonate a member of his “moderation team”. Otherwise, I would have picked a more serious name.
Sometimes Graham D. Warner fails at ignoring. Sometimes he succeeds.
He succeeds at ignoring what Roy hinted.
He succeeds at ignoring that he commented at Ed’s under a perfectly fine moniker.
His successes at ignoring outshine his failures.
All personal remarks, all the time.
Let’s see how personal that syllogism is:
P1. Graham D. Warner should respect Roy’s will.
P2. Roy hinted that he disliked his actual moniker.
P2. “DREMT” (like he used at Ed’s) is a perfectly fine moniker.
C. Graham D. Warner could use the “DREMT” moniker.
P.S:
“The aim of the first three is to stomp on all conversation”
Why is Nate exempt from this accusation? At 2407 comments he’s not exactly slacking himself, this year.
Nate acts like a politician. I would not be surprised if he serves as an elected official or as a volunteer in his local government. Given how strongly he argues his position, he is also one of the more polite people who usually sticks to the message rather than personal stuff.
So do I, but I still got the false accusation that my aim was to “stomp on all conversation”. I just wondered why Nate was exempt.
Your PSTs are NOT polite. Why can’t you get that into your thick skull.
Even if that were true, Antonin, 80% of my contributions are not PSTs, are about the topics others bring up, and are “sticking to the message rather than personal stuff”. Of course, when people attack me personally, as they so often do, then I defend myself, and thus the conversation is moved onto “personal stuff”. That’s hardly my fault.
Right, because nothing is ever your fault is it. You’re like one of those annoying weeds at school who continually pester people then wonder why they keep getting smacked in the face. Just clueless.
“But sir, I only fart 20% of the time”.
Wrong, Antonin. Some of those PSTs were inappropriate. I take full responsibility for that. I’m sure you can find many examples where nothing bad was said, but I still PSTd. That was wrong.
I’m sure maybe one day you can even take responsibility for your own actions, too.
ALL are inappropriate.
Even IF it was only 800, that is more than ALL my comments this year. More than 100 per month.
You NEVER apply it to obvious T-ing by those on your side of the fence. In a tit-for-tat exchange you skip right over the likes of Flynn and co. And it is T-ing in its own right.
“ALL are inappropriate.”
Well, I wouldn’t go that far. There’s a lot of t-word-ing that goes on from the people I ask to stop. One person, in particular, who probably accounts for at least 50% of all my PSTs…
“You NEVER apply it to obvious T-ing by those on your side of the fence. In a tit-for-tat exchange you skip right over the likes of Flynn and co. And it is T-ing in its own right.”
Part of the point of PSTs is to mimic and criticise the tribalism and ultimate futility of the climate debate. I assumed people would get that.
> I’ll let someone driven by their intense hatred and desire to prove me wrong about anything, ever, do the actual counting […] One person, in particular, who probably accounts for at least 50% of all my [PSTering]
Is that a third-person address, or is it too informal for the superintendent?
What Ant does not recognize is the quality DREMT has brought to this blog.
He has spent hours patiently negating the nonsense from silly willy. That ties up silly willy so he can’t interfere with the adults.
I don’t have the patience to do the same with my stalkers….
Interesting definition of “quality”.
So much hatred, so little reason for it.
Indeed DREMT. There is no need for the hatred you express every time you post PST.
No hatred at all, Antonin.
To answer my own question, “the superintendent” is a third-person address in the usual sense of the term. It is a direct address. It is in the third person.
Let the mind probing contest continue.
Is Little Willy addressing me, or Antonin? What exactly is his point?
Who knows?
Perhaps Graham D. Warner missed all the fuss about third-person addresses.
“The superintendent” can’t refer to him. First, I *never* address him directly. Second, he doesn’t try to moderate the blog.
He’s just having a little fun.
If you all stop responding to me, I will stop commenting. Simple, huh?
Graham D. Warner’s departure seems delayed once again.
Up to you guys. If you can let me go, I will go.
“If you all stop responding to me, I will stop commenting. Simple, huh?”
So long as DREMT has the very last word. Because that is all that really matters to him.
Bless them.
Crap,
I didn’t even make the top 20!
Stay away from the Welsh and next year is yours!
BTW, someone else in that list apart from Swens0n is blocked.
My comment wouldn’t post, even after changing the o in Flynn’s name to zero. I couldn’t be bothered experimenting, so I changed ALL the other o’s to zeroes and all the I’s to ones, and it posted.
Does anyone know who that person is?
I’m not sure, but how would you go about ‘experimenting’?
Changing one at a time until it posted.
Elliott Bignell? No, I guess not.
Another flaw in the cult’s “thinking” is their definition of “science”. To cultists, “science” is whatever they believe. That’s why I started stating “That ain’t science”.
In reality, science is verifiable, observable, testable, repeatable, demonstrable, and falsifiable.
Clint R,
What part of “The Moon doesn’t rotate” fits into all that?
Rhetorical question, the answer is a territory in Canada, Nunavut.
Stephen,
” most of the water vapor is low altitude and the same with CO2 so it is concentrated down near the surface”
The radiation from the surface is absorbed and thermalized within the first few meters of the atmosphere, driving convection which increases the rate of cooling of the surface
Thanks, Phil,
Makes sense and I agree with that. The more I study the planet’s physics, the more I believe that it is albedo that controls temperature. CO2 has an insignificant effect on temperature. I believe that CO2 mostly follows temperature changes. I don’t know how much GHE contributes to temperature and neither does anyone else. It is low watt meters whereas albedo changes can be over a hundred watt meters from day to day.
Here are the 2023 counts. I have not bothered to include individuals who have not been posting in 2024.
1. Willard 7324
2. DREMT 5673
3. Nate 4604
4. Swens0n 4177
5. Gordon 3634
6. Bill hunter 3507
7. RLH 2743
8. Clint 2678
9. gbaikie 2159
10. Bindidon 1991
11. barry 1743
12. Antonin Qwerty 1401
13. bobdroege 1164
14. Ball4 1011
15. Entropic man 812
16. Ireneusz Palmowski 746
17. E. Swanson 741
18. Tim Folkerts 675
19. Norman 558
20. Eben 534
21. Ken 485
22. Arkady Ivanovich 450
23. Tim S 412
24. Christos Vournas 404
25. bdgwx 375
If the job wasn’t way, way too stoopid to be done, I would download 7324 posts and show us how many of these might be considered ‘extremely inauspicious‘, he he he…
Some people really have an unattainable level of arrogance and egocentrism.
The only extremely inauspicious number known so far is 1488.
Look it up.
Again, probably about 20% PSTs, or less, putting my number of actual contributions below Nate and above Swens0n. The vast, vast majority of the actual contributions being polite and reasonable even in the face of overwhelmingly aggressive and relentless personal criticism, false accusations, misrepresentations, condescension, and general abuse.
Thanks for admitting that your PSTs contribute absolutely nothing.
It reads well when somebody is t-word-ing away, and then the thread ends with a PST. I think it can be quite effective at showing the t-word-ing up for what it is. So I wouldn’t say there is absolutely no contribution. I just don’t consider them my “real” contribution to the blog. Feel free to be permanently outraged by those three little words, though, making the biggest fuss about it I’ve ever seen.
It does no such thing. All it does is give you a reason to toss.
IMO it does, IYO it doesn’t. That’s fine, opinions differ.
Of course, if you believe your opinion is fact, then…
*Showing* is so important to Graham D. Warner that he goes back many days later to PSTer dead threads. He does it in small batches of 5-10 comments. This way he does not get caught by the spam filter.
He is just having a little fun.
"He does it in small batches of 5-10 comments. This way he does not get caught by the spam filter."
That’s false, Little Willy.
Also, the reason I go back to dead threads is because of the t-words here who like to do the same thing with actual responses to dead threads. They like to write actual, detailed responses to people who have clearly moved on further down-thread, and most likely won’t even see their response. Just so they can get the last word. So my dead thread PSTs are mocking that behaviour.
Graham D. Warner’s farewell is lingering, and astute readers with an RSS feed who understand how the spam filter works can verify that I’m right, whether Graham D. Warner’s PSTering behavior is fully conscious or not.
He is just having a little fun.
My "farewell" will take as long as it takes. I’m going though, so you can drop the whole "trying to get me banned" thing.
> They like to write actual, detailed responses to people who have clearly moved on further down-thread
Exactly like here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/yes-the-greenhouse-effect-is-like-a-real-greenhouse-and-other-odds-and-ends/#comment-1683766
It is quite clear that TS left the building less than 30 minutes after he wrote his comment.
If you say so, Little Willy.
And for some, the egocentrism goes so far that they feel like they are being addressed even though they are not at all – was the number above not clear enough?
Why the heck can’t this pseudo-moderator just stop his endless egocentric whining?
If I had been replying to you I would have hit the reply button next to your name, Bindidon. Instead, I was replying to Antonin’s original post.
Agreed, my bad.
Oh the hypocrisy. Posting your PST BS without regard to anyone’s opinion, then expecting others to respect who you WANT to hear back from. You have ZERO sense of what is fair and appropriate.
Huh? What have I done wrong this time? Lol, this is getting ridiculous. Bindidon just acknowledged his mistake, nothing more needed to be said.
So let me get this right … you can jump in on any post uninvited, yet everyone else must wait until you address them directly before replying to you … is that right?
No. You are so blinded by hatred you can no longer even follow a simple exchange.
Ant’s effort to defame DREMT, in light of Willard’s pathetic performance for 2023-2024, tells us Ant’s agenda.
> pathetic
I would have preferred a 1-to-5 ratio, Puffman, but a 1-to-3 ratio is more than fine. AQ is having a hard time getting to a 1-to-2 ratio as we speak. And he busted the 10 comments limit multiple times already.
DREMT
So you can’t even answer a simple question.
(1) Are YOU permitted to jump in on a post uninvited?
(2) Does someone else have to wait until you address them before joining in?
Yes or no to each please.
(1) Yes. Anyone can jump in, in any discussion.
(2) No.
Now, onto what actually happened. Bindidon, at 5:27 AM, thought I had written my 5:03 AM comment to him, because it followed his 4:16 AM comment. However, I wasn’t actually replying to Bindidon, I was replying to your 12:47 AM comment. So his 5:27 AM rant against me was misplaced. As soon as I explained that to him, he admitted his mistake.
So, there’s no problem.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Anyone can jump in, in any discussion.
[PUFFMAN] And I wont be responding to your next stalking effort. As someone one said Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
Point?
Remember the years Graham D. Warner spent calling Nate “my stalker”?
Those were the days
Anyone can jump in, in any discussion. That is just how the blog works. However, when specific people follow you around from thread to thread, always jumping in whenever you comment on anything, it does seem like they’re stalking you.
So only Graham D. Warner is always permitted to jump in on a post uninvited.
Wrong. You’re not listening. You, bob, Nate and Ball4 are all welcome to stalk me, and I am allowed to criticise you for it. That’s how it works. You can all whinge endlessly about PSTs, I’m allowed to defend myself.
Graham D. Warner does not always use the word “stalking,” but when he does it’s a welcoming gesture.
If you say so, Little Willy.
When AQ was asking Graham D. Warner was *permitted* to join in and pile on anywhere in the blog, AQ was of course asking about the capacity to click on “reply” and post a comment.
He was asking a mere technical question, no doubt.
What’s the overly critical nonsense this time, Little Willy? I can’t keep up with all the endless hatred.
Astute readers should never fear:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/yes-the-greenhouse-effect-is-like-a-real-greenhouse-and-other-odds-and-ends/#comment-1683938
So here we are. According to Graham D. Warner:
R1. Everybody is “permitted” to jump in, in any discussion.
R2. When when specific people follow you around from thread to thread, always jumping in whenever you comment on anything, it does seem like theyre stalking you.
R3. Except for PSTering, which doesn’t count.
Yep.
Based on this list of names and without needing to replace 0s with Os or 1s with Is, I was able to narrow down the banned individual to five possible candidates on your 2024 list: #15, #18, #28, #29 (myself), or #30.
If you post too many comments with a banned word in a short time, the spam filter kicks in. You won’t be able to post anything. That also voids your test.
When that happens, wait for about 30 minutes.
Where is Antonin to acknowledge he got it wrong again?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/new-comments-policy-here/#comment-1683751
I’ve not read comments here a lot. What’s striking here now is fighting pairs that can’t leave stuff uncommented.
I suggest a daily limit could help combined with some hand moderation like Jo Nova does.
Also, killing off-topic personal vendetta is important. It’s not just insults, but focus on the person.
You presume something that, if it ever existed, would have made our predicament impossible.
For interested readers: here is a comparison of the last three solar cycles (monthly averages with 13 month running means), based on the Belgian SILSO data.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZXKy96mHyuMttcg2vy7k0b3DeLfKzmML/view
The dashed line links SILSO’s last official monthly value with the monthly average of their daily estimated international sunspot number (EISN) for the current month. It’s non-committing of course and can change during the month.
*
Slowly but surely, solar cycle SC 25 is moving toward the prediction made by McIntosh & al.
Deciphering solar magnetic activity: The (solar) hale cycle terminator of 2021
Scott W. McIntosh, Robert J. Leamon and Ricky Egeland (2023)
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/astronomy-and-space-sciences/articles/10.3389/fspas.2023.1050523/pdf
*
We can watch the comparison of SC 25 to their prediction at any time, updated daily by a group around C. Mstl (GeoSphere Austria):
https://helioforecast.space/static/sync/icme_solar_cycle/cycle25_prediction_focus.png
Damnd blog scanner 😡 🔥 🦂
Please read Möstl
I don’t fancy the chances of going close to 180. I think this is the last hurrah before the peak.
The longer it takes to get to the peak, the weaker the cycle in general, and this has been a long climb. I can’t see it going much higher than 150. I hope I’m wrong though – it would be good to put that “winter is coming” BS to bed for good.
BTW – that McIntosh paper. In the opening paragraph, why are they giving 1sigma as +/- 17, and 2sigma as +/- 63?
” … why are they giving 1sigma as +/- 17, and 2sigma as +/- 63? ”
What’s wrong there?
Antonin Qwerty
” I cant see it going much higher than 150. ”
I will wait until August 2025 to agree.
If 1 standard deviation is 17 then 2 standard deviations is 34.
68% and 95% are the confidence intervals for 1sd and 2sd respectively.
You do realize that standard deviation is only relevant to the arithmetic mean?
WTH are you on about. What mean of sunspot counts do you BELIEVE is being taken? Do you think the monthly averages are geometric means?
In any case, variance (and hence standard deviation) is calculated for ALL probabilistic and statistical distributions.
You didn’t do statistics did you?
“Variance and Standard deviation are the two important topics in Statistics. It is the measure of the dispersion of statistical data. Dispersion is the extent to which values in a distribution differ from the average of the distribution.”
https://byjus.com/maths/standard-deviation/
https://www.dictionary.com/e/average-vs-mean-vs-median-vs-mode/
“Though we commonly use the word average in everyday life when discussing the number that’s the most ‘typical’ or that’s ‘in the middle’ of a group of values, more precise terms are used in math and statistics.”
Search for the Levene test, Richard.
RLH
I not only studied statistics, I TEACH statistics.
Nothing you just quoted speaks against anything I said.
AQ: Though we commonly use the word average in everyday life when discussing the number that’s the most ‘typical’ or that’s ‘in the middle’ of a group of values, more precise terms are used in math and statistics.
“‘Mean,’ ‘Median,’ And ‘Mode’: What’s The Difference?”
“Namely, the words mean, median, and mode each represent a different calculation or interpretation of which value in a data set is the most common or most representative of the set as a whole.”
Yet more irrelevance.
A reminder – you implied that the arithmetic mean is not used with this data. Whackamole anyone?
The arithmetic mean is what the running mean is usually based on.
Which is EXACTLY what I said.
So what was the point of “You do realize that standard deviation is only relevant to the arithmetic mean?”
As a statics teacher you should NEVER use ‘average’ in statics conversation.
Are you saying that standard deviation is taking about something than arithmetic mean?
I’ll ask again:
What was the point of You do realize that standard deviation is only relevant to the arithmetic mean?
Recall that I had not used the word “average” when you made that statement.
“The Version 6 global AVERAGE lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2024 was …”
Make your you have a go at Dr Spencer for that. Tell him that he should know better.
Antonin Qwerty
” BTW that McIntosh paper. In the opening paragraph, why are they giving 1sigma as +/- 17, and 2sigma as +/- 63? ”
*
Please read this:
https://q-interline.com/technology/statistics/
Maybe it helps… :–)
Bindidon
That page seems to be saying precisely what I said.
I agree that the sentence
” Slowly but surely, solar cycle SC 25 is moving toward the prediction made by McIntosh & al. ”
might be misunderstood.
But between ‘moving toward’ and e.g. ‘reaching soon’ there is imho a huge difference.
Running mean again. Even though others have said that they contain ‘way too much distortion’.
Yet the SSN is PRECISELY a running mean.
Can you find any issue with saying the average number of sunspots per day up to this point in SC25 is 73, compared with 53 up to the same point in SC24? Or is that also a distortion?
Or how about … it will take an EXTRA 10 months of SC24 to catch up to the total number of sunspots SO FAR this cycle? Is that a distortion?
You know that ‘average’ covers a lot in statistics?
What do you THINK I meant? I’ll wait …
> Yet the SSN is PRECISELY a running mean.
Has anyone invited this comment?
What distortions do you think a running mean is subject to? What distortion level do you think that a running mean causes?
You made the claim. You answer your question.
Answer mine while you’re at it.
“Namely, the words mean, median, and mode each represent a different calculation or interpretation of which value in a data set is the most common or most representative of the set as a whole.”
Are you saying that the running mean causes NO distortions? See Vaughn Pratt.
You made the claim … you answer the question.
I have answered it.
“The words mean, median, and mode each represent a different calculation or interpretation of which value in a data set is the most common or most representative of the set as a whole”
As a statistics teacher you should know better.
Your quote is correct, but it has nothing to do with your claim.
You have not answered your question.
I have. Show me where I did not answer it?
“The words mean, median, and mode each represent a different calculation or interpretation of which value in a data set is the most common or most representative of the set as a whole“
The words mean, median, and mode are all used as ‘average’ in non statistics conversation.
I don’t see the word “distortion” anywhere in that quote.
So you have NOT answered the question.
See Vaughn Pratt.
I’ll take that as an admission that you did not in fact answer the question.
Antonin Qwerty
I think you’ll have no chance in discussing technical facts with RLH whom I renamed ‘Blindsley H00d’ for good reasons.
*
Look at what he writes:
” Running mean again. Even though others have said that they contain way too much distortion. ”
*
As always, instead of trying to contribute to the points discussed, the stubborn, pathologically opinionated Blindlsey H00d can’t refrain from putting himself and his ‘science’ in front of the exchange.
We can read in one of his recent posts: ‘I was taught simple statistics as part of my MSc’. Ah well ah well.
His aim is simple: to focus into what he learned from a Climate etc guest post presented in 2013 by a blogger named Greg Goodman: that simple running means are evil, and that the entire world should use cascaded running means instead.
Even worse: StanU Emeritus Prof. Vaughan Pratt wrote in that thread that he would not wish simple running means on his worst enemy.
Since then, from Blindlsey H00ds point of view, anyone who uses simple running means should be pilloried, to say the least.
Blindsley H00d speaks since years about running mean distortions in general – without however having ever been able to show even once the presence of any of them in the data of any time series we discuss on the blog.
The difference between simple and cascaded running means based on Vaughan Pratt’s specification is negligible (see the umpteenth, lengthy discussion starting on July 21, 2024 at 6:04 PM).
Rather, he proudly refers to authorities (statisticians, Wikipedia, bloggers), e.g.
An SMA can also be disproportionately influenced by old data dropping out or new data coming in.
or even better
” A major drawback of the SMA is that it lets through a significant amount of the signal shorter than the window length.
Worse, it actually inverts it. This can lead to unexpected artifacts, such as peaks in the smoothed result appearing where there were troughs in the data. ”
*
Note that he wouldn’t dare to contact e.g. the SILSO team and ask them about their definitely illegal use of a running mean, let alone criticize Roy Spencer for using them too.
*
The very best is that he even these days still won’t have understood why I recently posted this UAH data graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15Zs4u1sjqnN3EoDTjtEX7GM5uCjUiTCu/view
He sidesteps claims he has made and posts irrelevances as “explanations”. He clearly has little intuition for basic statistics.
As usual Blinny fails to note the what I quoted came from VP.
AQ: I use points instead of lines on a graph precisely because of what my statistics professor said.
What “lines” are you referring to?
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/uah-global-1.jpeg
instead of what Roy et al post.
Now you’re doing a ren. I have no idea what your graph is supposed to be telling me.
Use WORDS. What are these “lines”?
The lines where there is no data. i.e. between the points.
Is Blinny saying that the Wiki is wrong? Yet fails to correct it?
” As usual Blinny fails to note the what I quoted came from VP. ”
Oh oh oh…
Did I not write above:
” Even worse: StanU Emeritus Prof. Vaughan Pratt wrote in that thread that he would not wish simple running means on his worst enemy. ”
Maybe Blindsley H00d forgot that ‘VP’ is his own acronym for the person I highlighted above, who knows?
After all, people like Robertson forget everything they have written after a week at the latest.
*
What Blindsley H00d intentionally forgets to tell us, however, is that, unlike me, he never asked Vaughan Pratt what he thinks these days about cascaded versus simple running means – in comparison to what he wrote over 10 years ago.
*
Blindsley H00d reminds me here again of Robertson, who years ago read a NOAA document archived by Amazon’s crawling robot Alexa, and is still ‘convinced’ that NOAA today only uses the 1,500 weather stations it had for a brief period around 2008, after abandoning 4,500 stations worldwide that only transmitted their data manually.
*
Slowly but surely the mental difference between RLH on the one hand and Robertson or Clint R on the other is shrinking to… zero point zero.
” Is Blinny saying that the Wiki is wrong? Yet fails to correct it? ”
As always, Blindsley H00d polemically, disingenuously insinuates things instead of technically arguing.
I never told that Wiki’s statement is wrong. Hence no reason for me to correct it.
*
I told – and tell again – that Blindsley H00d even these days still doesn’t understand why I recently posted this UAH data graph showing aqbsolute temperatures instead of anomalies:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15Zs4u1sjqnN3EoDTjtEX7GM5uCjUiTCu/view
Any 10-year-old child would immediately recognize that not only the simple running mean but also the cascaded running mean behaves inversely to the source in many places, and that cascades therefore behave just as incorrectly as simple means. Blindsley H00d, however, cannot recognize or accept this. No wonder!
Blinny also said “The difference between simple and cascaded running means based on Vaughan Pratt’s specification is negligible” did he not?
Blinny also fails to recognize that running means let through WAY too much high frequency. Such I (and Wiki) said.
“showing absolute temperatures” which shows data (between the data points) which does not exist.
Oh look…
” https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/uah-global-1.jpeg
instead of what Roy et al post. ”
*
Blindsely H00d aka RLH is probably one of the only few people in the world who ridiculously represent time series as sets of points instead of intelligently connecting them with lines.
Doing this namely allows observers to not only see how these dots form visible time series, but also to distinguish which time series they belong to when several are shown on the same image.
There may well be reasons why he insists on this clueless, lineless representation, for example:
– to emphasize his cascades at the expense of the original data so that only the cascades are perceived by the reader
or
– simply the inability of the system he uses to represent the lines that we lack.
*
I will never forget how Blindsley H00d responded years ago to my request to display UAH and RSS data not in separate graph images, but together in one image:
https://imgur.com/a/Y96Ph5O
This explains a lot, doesn’t it?
” Blinny also said
‘The difference between simple and cascaded running means based on Vaughan Pratt’s specification is negligible’ did he not? ”
*
Yes I did, and Blindsley H00d was never able to technically, let alone scientifically contradict what I wrote.
On July 21, 2024 at 6:04 PM, I presented on the blog a graph which compares for UAH 6.0 LT
– the source data,
– a simple 12 month running mean (SRM12),
– a cascaded triple 12/10/8 month running mean (C3RM12) based on Vaughan Pratts cascade technique,
– the second order polynomials of both the SRM and the C2RM12 (within the latters active window of course because of their differing active periods):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PDFit-vkoTLnwOq7fl2hP_pKaWKz6qUk/view
*
And I added:
” The first thing you see is that the distortions claimed by Blindsley H00d do not at all look like the hell he suggests.
The second thing you see is that the polynomials for SRM / C3RM, which represent the essence of the time series they are constructed out, are extremely similar.
Only an inexperienced ideologist would point on slightly differing time series while ignoring the similarity of their essentials.
No wonder that the linear trends of SRM and C3RM are equal at 3 digits after the decimal point within the latters active window:
SRM: 0.13608 +- 0.006 (C/decade)
C3RM: 0.13620 +- 0.005 ”
*
Instead of admitting this evidence, Blindsley H00d wrote:
” RLH says:
July 22, 2024 at 10:01 AM
SRMs and CxRMs a la VP show exactly the same polynomial behavior
Again you lie. ”
Where the heck did I lie? The second order polynomials in the graph above are so extremely similar that I had to draw the one at top in dashed mode, in order to make the other below half visible.
*
I apologize for this endless discussion.
But the blog community should understand that if I don’t react to RLH’s intentional misrepresentations he endlessly repeats since years, anyone might think I’m wrong.
This I can’t accept.
*
Let me add that I had last year a short email exchange with StanU emeritus Professor Vaughan Pratt, who explained to me that while he had lots of fun with his computation of cascading coefficients a decade ago, he nevertheless stopped long time ago using these cascaded running means he no longer considered useful.
This is by the way the correct comparison, for the UAH 6.0 LT time series, of the cascaded 12 month triple running mean and the cascaded 12 month triple running median, both based on Vaughan Pratt’s specification (1.0; 1.2067; 1.5478 – leakage 0.31% or -50.1 dB) giving 12/10/8 month cascades:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1umE0x_ObQqkafV33CqwRkzXHwMVQWJEJ/view
The mean and median cascades are implemented in exactly the same way, the only difference of course being to use
‘AVERAGE(from:to)’
versus
‘MEDIAN(from:to)’
in the respective cascade cells.
*
Every professional engineer using Excel or a derivate – e.g. Libre Office Calc on UNIX/LINUX systems – should be able to perfectly replicate this result.
“The lines where there is no data. i.e. between the points.”
There is no missing data.
“ridiculously represent time series as sets of points instead of intelligently connecting them with lines”
So what data represents those lines? Data along the lines that is.
“There is no missing data.”
So show me the data that represents the data at the half way point (say) along the lines.
…the data at…
…the point at…
Antonin Qwerty
As you can see, there is no way to discuss with such a stubborn, inexperienced, opinionated person, who thinks he can teach the entire world with his pseudo-knowledge, located exactly at the same level as that of Clint R’s denial of e.g. the lunar spin.
I have never supported Clint et al views on Lunar spin.
This Blindsley H00d guy (he is over 75) behaves like a crazy 12-year old school boy.
I wrote:
” As you can see, there is no way to discuss with such a stubborn, inexperienced, opinionated person, who thinks he can teach the entire world with his pseudo-knowledge, located exactly at the same level as that of Clint Rs denial of e.g. the lunar spin.
*
But he insidiously replies:
” I have never supported Clint et al views on Lunar spin. ”
*
I never claimed he did that!
I wrote and write again that the way he argues about
– distortions in simple moving averages,
– the alleged difference between median and mean calculations in time series,
– and especially about
– his utter nonsense about the alleged use of nonexistent data in connecting data points with lines,
is located exactly at the same level as that of Clint Rs denial of e.g. the lunar spin.
*
But I know – and have experienced for years – that Blindsley H00d aka RLH never admits he is wrong and constantly pushes to distort and misrepresent everything you write – exactly like Clint R does.
Just checked on the Polar Vortex. Two weeks ago, it was being squeezed by two high-pressure systems, resulting in some blocking. But, the PV has won the day and is now healthy, with wind speeds hitting 280 mph.
If the PV maintains this health, we should soon see a drop in global temperatures, including ENSO and UAH.
I’ve been tricked several times, trying to guess the end of the HTE. But, maybe this is finally it.
Now why does this feel familiar?
https://xkcd.com/1166/
Si j'étais un sale menteur comme le sont pas mal de posteurs sur ce blog, je vous répondrais que je n'en ai pas la moindre idée 😡
Car Brutus est un homme honorable ; nous le sommes tous, tous des hommes honorables.
Exactement, Entropic man… ☺
From an earlier comment,
“* CO2 actually cools the earth, it doesnt warm the earth.”
True!
More specifically it is the primary coolant of the mesosphere
While warming the troposphere.
> CO2 actually cools the earth
From Roy’s last post:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/yes-the-greenhouse-effect-is-like-a-real-greenhouse-and-other-odds-and-ends/
When the coolant increases, the height that it cools efficiently gets higher.This might have an effect on how much heat CO2 manages to dispatch – and what’s the temp profile of the atmosphere below.
> This might
Only if that “might” is an English one:
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/11/11/12/language-web.jpg
For it does have an effect.
Roy’s ain’t Jo’s.
You can’t be sure of what you don’t see. I suggest considering it, though.
One can’t be sure of what one sees either. Certainty might not be our best guide here. In the English sense of “might” at least.
I suggest that science requires a little more than appeals to incredulity based on double negatives.
As I said, ibid. *plonk*
As Roy explained, the atmosphere with its GHG are operating much like insulation.
The topmost layer of insulation in your attic is emitting the heat loss from your heated house (in winter) to the cold air outside.
With the insulation present, the heat loss from the house is reduced. No one could logically claim that the top-most layer of insulation, which is colder than the house below, is acting as a COOLANT for the house.
Without the atmosphere, all radiation from the surface goes directly to space. With an atmosphere, much of the heat loss from the surface is intercepted by radiative gases and clouds before being released to space.
And since these gases and clouds radiate from a much LOWER temperature than the surface, their net effect is to REDUCE the heat loss to space.
That is certainly not acting as a coolant.
And with ADDED GHG, as noted, the height of radiation to space increases, and the heat loss is further reduced.
Nah, doesn’t cool. Main purpose is plant growth.
Hello Antonion,
What little heat is transfered from the surface to co2 is insignificant compared to h20 in warming the bottom of the troposphere. However that would add to the rate of convection. Increasing the rate of convection increases the rate at which the surface cools…
PhilJ
Actually the H2O greenhouse effect is about twice the CO2 greenhouse effect.
The problem with ascribing most of the surface heat loss to convection is that the converted heat then has to be converted into radiation and lost to space. What mechanism do you think is doing that?
However you think it happens you still need a chain of processes which begins with heat loss from the surface and ends with infrared radiation to space.
If you want to downplay the role of greenhouse gases you need something else to do the same job. What do you suggest?
“ends with infrared radiation to space”
at what temperature?
“Actually the H2O greenhouse effect is about twice the CO2 greenhouse effect.”
H2O is 90% of GHE. CO2 is 8%.
Does Infrared radiation have a temperature?
My understanding of wave-particle is that radiation has electro-magnetic characteristics and that doesn’t include a temperature.
“Does Infrared radiation have a temperature?”
All radiation is caused at a given temperature.
Actually the H2O greenhouse effect is about twice the CO2 greenhouse effect.
That’s almost as bad as claiming passenger jets fly backward. H2O is many times more capable of returning energy to Earth’s surface. CO2 is extremely ineffective.
However you think it happens you still need a chain of processes which begins with heat loss from the surface and ends with infrared radiation to space.
That “chain” would be: From surface — emission, conduction, convection, evaporation/condensation. From atmosphere to space — emission
If you want to downplay the role of greenhouse gases you need something else to do the same job. What do you suggest?
So-called “greenhouse gases” are just infrared-radiative gases. They very effectively emit infrared to space. There is no need to downplay their role.
“Infrared radiation refers to electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between microwave and visible light, ranging from 0.78 to 1000 μm. It is not directly visible to the human eye but is emitted by any object with a temperature above absolute zero”
Ken
Measure the spectrum of thermal radiation and you get a bell curve with a maximum intensity emission wavelength. The intensity then tapers off to zero to either side. You can predict the pattern using the Stefan – Boltzmann and Planck equations.
For example the red line here plots the emission from Earth’s surface at 294K
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
If you increase the temperature the central peak gets higher and the whole curve moves to shorter wavelengths. You can measure the temperature of the emitting surface by measuring the wavelength of the peak, which is how infrared thermometers work.
The wattage, the total amount of energy emitted, also increases with increasing temperature.
Hello Entropic,
Most of the surface heat loss is through evaporation which is increased by convection.
The majority of ir loss to space comes from h20 at the top of the troposphere.
Thus h20 is the primary means by which the surface cools to the atmosphere and the primary means by which the atmosphere cools to space
Does Infrared radiation have a temperature?
“All radiation is caused at a given temperature.”
Emiss…ivity is same frequency as absor…tion. CO2 at high altitude isn’t going to have the same temperature as at low altitude.
“CO2 at high altitude isnt going to have the same temperature as at low altitude.”
But it emits the same frequencies of radiation.
RLH
ends with infrared radiation to space
at what temperature? ”
Rather depends on where it is emitted from.
Surface radiation emitted through the atmospheric window depends on the surface temperature. That would be somewhere between 220K and 320K.
GHG emissions mostly reach space from the tropopause, emitted at 220K to 240K?
Ken
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/
“A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder. “
“25% due to clouds”
What temperature are the clouds at?
“50% … is due to water vapour”
What temperature (range if necessary) is the water vapour at?
Good questions. Look them up for us, there’s a good chap.
Ent fails to answer the question.
Ent has decided that RLH is not pulling his weight.
As usual, Ent fails to answer the question.
So if I were to fly an atomic clock from London to South Africa (and vice versa) which is younger and why?
Blindsley H00d
Why do you keep stalking other people with questions that you should be answering YOURSELF?
Are you that lazy?
Bindidon appears too lazy to answer the question.
If I were to fly an atomic clock from London to South Africa (and vice versa) which is younger and why?
They are both the same, regardless of the velocity between them. That is against Einstein. Prove me wrong.
“That is against Einstein.”
How do you know that, RLH?
What would Einstein have predicted?
From an earlier comment,
> cult […] cultists […] In reality, science is verifiable, observable, testable, repeatable, demonstrable, and falsifiable.
Science is either verifiable or falsifiable. It can’t be both. And empirical science isn’t demonstrable, for is truly demonstrated can’t be undone.
Observability and testability matter, but for scientific theories as a whole and while being connected to one another in a manner that is still unclear:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3131087
Appeals to scientificity are not very different than appeals to reality or even appeals to religiosity. They oftentimes amount to mere posturing. And when they reveal an incuriosity regarding these topics, they always do.
Reducing science to its theories seldom leads to anything fruitful. Theories are formal apparatus. Those who wish to follow suit need the chops to do so. For instance, the transitivity of rotation has little to do with set theory; there are sets that allow for intransitive relations. It’s just a result of Euler’s rotation theorem. By the same token, there are many definitions of rotation in astronomy, and they all are relative to some frame of reference.
Cult children don’t understand “falsifiable”.
But that’s okay. There are a lot of things kids don’t understand….
> Cult children
Perhaps Puffman could comment on this:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/08/03/the-popper-ratio/
I’ll let him discover who wrote this.
Correct, cult children don’t understand “falsifiable”.
People like Clint R are so incompetent that they don’t understand the difference between ‘verifiable’ and ‘falsifiable’ and that if something (a scientific result or a piece of software) has been verified, it NEVER can be falsified at the same time.
Says a retired engineer – no idea what Clint R is or has been, but a science man or an engineer he has been as much as his friend-in-denial Robertson, namely NEVER.
Clint R’s cultish, childish pseudo-science reminds us something like a mix of flatearthism and geocentrism.
Sorry Bindi, but I never said “verifiable” was the same thing as “falsifiable’. That was YOUR buddy Willard trying to confuse things, as usual.
But keep the insults and false accusations coming. That just verifies you have NOTHING, and your claim to know science is easily falsifiable.
You cult kids just keep making me look good.
> I never said “verifiable” was the same thing as “falsifiable”.
Puffman forgot to read the whole sentence:
“If something (a scientific result or a piece of software) has been verified, it NEVER can be falsified at the same time.”
This is the part that does not cohere with what he said.
total comments so far in the thread – 540 {1}
Graham D. Warner 102 (18,89%)
AQ 84 (15,56%)
W 60 (11,11%)
RLH 50 (9,26%)
Binny 35 (6,48%)
Puffman 33 (6,11%)
Bob 33 (6,11%)
gb 21 (3,89%)
K 19 (3,52%)
TS 16 (2,96%)
Nate 16 (2,96%)
JW 13 (2,41%)
EM 10 (1,85%)
SPA 10 (1,85%)
Eric 6 (1,11%)
TF 6 (1,11%)
PJ 4 (0,74%)
518 95,93%
Remaining commenters: ren, other brad, skeptical, barry, EB, Roy (!!), George, AK, sb, bdgwx, John Boland, Joachim, Norman, Ansgar, Buzz, winston. Sorry if I forget anyone.
Corrections welcome.
{1} Besides this one and the one in which Puffman calls the father of falsificationnism a cultish child.
2024-08-18 00:17:55 UTC+2
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team: 102
Antonin Qwerty: 84
Willard: 61
RLH: 49
Bindidon: 35
Clint R: 34
bobdroege: 33
Ken: 19
Tim S: 16
Nate: 14
John W: 13
gbaikie: 12
Entropic man: 10
Stephen P Anderson: 8
tim folkerts: 6
Eric: 6
PhilJ: 4
bdgwx: 4
sunsettommy: 3
Elliott Bignell: 3
Eben: 3
barry: 3
Ireneusz Palmowski: 2
The other Brad: 1
TheFinalNail: 1
studentb: 1
Stephen P. Anderson: 1
Stephen P anderson: 1
stephen P anderson: 1
skeptikal: 1
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.: 1
Roy W Spencer: 1
Richard Greene: 1
Norman: 1
John Boland: 1
Joachim: 1
Gee Aye: 1
Curious George: 1
Buzz: 1
Anthony Kirkpatrick: 1
Ansgar John Brenninkmeijer: 1
RLH: 49
Bindidon: 35
The majority of mine are responding to yours.
Wrong, Blindsley H00d.
Rather, it is I who, for years, has responded to your pseudo-scientific nonsense with data-based facts that you have never been able to technically contradict and which you therefore instead discredit, sometimes deny, and even accuse me of lying (see upthread).
You were the one who said that running averages (mean) were little different to VP’s calculations. Never heard of ‘distortions of running means’ have you?
Whoops!
I have been inattentive and missed out on getting listed.
This gets me into 20th position.
You i.diot. Why not say something constructive?
“Why not say something constructive?”
OK:
My father was a carpenter.
Thanks!
If people are able to stop responding to me, I will stop commenting.
Christos,
Not sure if I’ve asked you this before. If the Moon spun once every 24 hours, what would its temperature be?
The latest update has Ernesto weakening to a TS but forecast to get back to hurricane strength as it move north. It is not expected to make landfall, but will pass close to Newfoundland on Monday.
https://i.ibb.co/9ZXchN6/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
I am still interested in somebody explaining the GHE.
From mainstream media science we get that as CO2 is increased we get less emission to space from the atmosphere.
But if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, mainstream media science also tells us there would be no emissions to space by the atmosphere and if we add some CO2 then emissions to space from the atmosphere will increase.
So at what point does increasing CO2 in the atmosphere do emissions to space from the atmosphere stop increasing and start decreasing?
Anybody?
> Anybody?
Roy did, in his last post:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/yes-the-greenhouse-effect-is-like-a-real-greenhouse-and-other-odds-and-ends/
Why bring this here?
Willard Roy explained that a warmer roof would make the surface warmer. I don’t necessarily disagree with that. Since this roof doesn’t conduct heat to space. I haven’t seen proof though that but it seems to be worthy of an experiment to prove it.
However the issue is more complex than that. My question was clear.
How is the roof going to get warmer despite CO2 cooling it?
> explained that a warmer roof would make the surface warmer
A lot warmer, in fact.
Perhaps you do not necessarily disagree with the fact that you keep asking for an explanation that has already been provided by Roy in the previous post and that this is a post about his new comments policy either.
You might be hard pressed to disagree with the fact that yesterday you posted 11 comments in the wrong thread.
No question that the existence of an atmosphere means it will have a temperature much greater than the temperature of space.
The question is does the addition of GHG to an atmosphere of say just oxygen and nitrogen force the lower atmosphere to be warmer, the same, or colder. We already know the answer for the upper atmosphere.
What makes it so puzzling is that the means by which we believe it makes it warmer is via the Tyndall experiment of observing the scattering of IR.
Yet the Seim and Olson experiment observes the scattering of IR in the CO2 chamber but does not record any significant warming of the heating plate.
That pretty much leaves the greenhouse theory with an untested mechanism. Its imply not good enough to have observed the scattering of IR.
People can be taught an answer but what really calls that answer into question is people actually talking about how they think it works. . .which subjects it to experiment.
bill,
“From mainstream media science we get that as CO2 is increased we get less emission to space from the atmosphere.”
Maybe mainstream media is not a good source of information.
As CO2 increases, there is less emission to space from the surface and the atmosphere, until the surface heats up to restore the balance.
And you believe you are a better source than mainstream media science? Seems to me all you did was parrot it.
Bill,
Maybe a reputed scientific source instead of me or the mainstream media.
“Seems to me all you did was parrot it.”
You must know it very well to accuse me of parroting.
I also know that there is not such thing as a third grade model.
I haven’t heard any decent refutations from you.
Obviously you don’t have a better source.
Bill,
You have been at this game long enough to know where to find good sources.
Do your own homework.
Start here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Well if you don’t know thats fine. It certainly isn’t Real Climate. It’s not mainstream either. Its just a political hack board that pretends to be talking about science. If you ask the wrong question you will get booted rather than get an answer.
Bill,
Well I do know.
First it is an ill formed question, because as CO2 increases, the emission to space remains the same.
Because energy in equals energy out.
That would be incorrect Bob. Energy in is constantly changing.
All you did was completely ignore that fact. Then you made the statement that energy in equals energy out.
If energy in always equaled energy out the temperature would never change. We know that to be untrue. One would not be able to ”store” solar energy or convert it to electricity if that were true.
I am afraid you need to look into this a lot deeper than the pablum you get off Real Climate.
Bill,
Energy out is also always changing.
The solar energy in varies over the year, but is relatively constant from year to year.
First law of thermodynamics says so.
“If energy in always equaled energy out the temperature would never change. We know that to be untrue.”
So we know the temperature changes due to changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, because that changes the energy out on the short term, temperature responds by increasing.
Good Job to recognize the Greenhouse Effect.
“If energy in always equaled energy out the temperature would never change. We know that to be untrue.”
Here we have the basis of the great misunderstanding.
It is true that energy in equals energy out and that the PLANETARY mean temperature stays the same. However, the SURFACE temperature can increase due to increased CO2.
How?
The PLANETARY mean temperature represents the mean temperature of the SURFACE and ATMOSPHERE. As CO2 increases, the SURFACE mean temperature increases while the upper ATMOSPHERE mean temperature decreases.
i.e. the stratosphere cools because CO2 below blocks some of the surface radiation that reaches that level.
Please do not make the mistake of equating planetary temperature with surface temperature.
bobdroege says:
So we know the temperature changes due to changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, because that changes the energy out on the short term, temperature responds by increasing.
[/quote]
I am not sure we know that. Wouldn’t adding GHG if anything increase the number of molecules in the atmosphere that are emitting heat to space.
I have said and most have acknowledged that the argument for a GHE in the first place is that the sky is warmer than outer space. Thus for a GHE to increase it would need to get warmer. Where is the evidence that is happening because of GHGs?
Yeah, have you heard that cooling of the upper atmosphere is one of the fingerprints of warming caused by CO2 and or other radiative gases.
BH: I am not sure we know that.
We do that via the 1LOT equation dE = Ein – Eout and the heat capacity equation dT = dE/(m*c) which via substitution becomes dT = (Ein – Eout)/(m*c). And we know via 160 years of experimentation that increasing CO2 concentrations results in dE > 0.
bobdroege says:
”Yeah, have you heard that cooling of the upper atmosphere is one of the fingerprints of warming caused by CO2 and or other radiative gases.”
IMO, science isn’t what I heard. . .its is, and only is, what I heard.
bdgwx says:
We do that via the 1LOT equation dE = Ein Eout and the heat capacity equation dT = dE/(m*c) which via substitution becomes dT = (Ein Eout)/(m*c). And we know via 160 years of experimentation that increasing CO2 concentrations results in dE > 0.
—————————
160 years of experimentation? You mean watching the temperature record? One cannot make a statistical argument worth the paper it is written on until natural variation is fully accounted for and we have a model that reconstructs what we hold dear, the ice core record and the last 160 years. some of these warming events don’t occur for a 1,000 years. As you can see below in the last 10,000 years it has occurred 10 times. . .and its been about 1,000 years since the last one.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/temperatures-have-changed-for-800000-years-it-wasnt-us/
Bill,
“IMO, science isnt what I heard. . .its is, and only is, what I heard.”
I am sure there is a lot of science that you haven’t heard of.
You are an engineer right, not a scientist?
Well I laid the challenge down years ago in here to bring forth the evidence that CO2 was capable of significant climate change and no such evidence has been forthcoming. I have already acknowledged that CO2 could warm the globe in a minor way without significantly enlarging the atmosphere but that is simply a concession that I can’t prove otherwise thus I keep that possibility open.
Certainly I can’t be expected to go out and prove no such science exists. If you believe that you know nothing at all about science.
Then it must also be true, since you can’t find any evidence either, that the only thing you believe is the rumors you heard from your daddy.
BH: You mean watching the temperature record?
That’s part of it. But, I was actually referring to experiments where IR radiation is directed toward a cuvette filled with CO2 (or other GHGs). Tyndall first did this in 1861. The experiment gets replicated countless times every day now via NDIRs in many HVAC installations to mitigate CO2 narcosis.
A cuvette is a great way to watch convection slingshot CO2 being warmed by a beam of light to the top of the vessel diverting it from the horizontal target of the light beam was focused on.
You are just jumping to conclusions about what the results will be for the surface. If the atmospheric window was still effectively open in the CO2 bandwidths I have said there would be some warming occurring. . .but to date there have been no experiments demonstrating that. As I have seen in experiments the CO2 window is closed within a few meters of the surface.
Bill,
You are doing it wrong.
” I have already acknowledged that CO2 could warm the globe in a minor way without significantly enlarging the atmosphere but that is simply a concession that I cant prove otherwise thus I keep that possibility open.”
It’s not about proof.
A minor change in temperature of 1 or 2 percent, now is that bad or significant?
The temperature has increased about 1 C or about 0.3 percent.
There is no evidence it is from anything but the increase in CO2 and associated feedbacks.
It’s not the Sun, it’s not long term ocean changes, it’s not cosmic rays, etc.
bobdroege says:
Bill,
You are doing it wrong.
Its not about proof.
A minor change in temperature of 1 or 2 percent, now is that bad or significant?
The temperature has increased about 1 C or about 0.3 percent.
There is no evidence it is from anything but the increase in CO2 and associated feedbacks.
Its not the Sun, its not long term ocean changes, its not cosmic rays, etc.
[/quote]
Your opinion is not an independent opinion Bob so it can be considered to be biased.
Fact is we don’t know what feedbacks are and we don’t know what the primary surface forcing is on how you want to measure temperature increase.
The sun has been getting brighter for 350 years.
https://flic.kr/p/2q9bU4r
the other factors are how much time the earth spends closer to the sun than further away from the sun. This appears to be driven by the other planets and the only reason you don’t know that is because folks are ignoring Milankovitch and/or they don’t want anybody to know about what Milankovitch actually found.
BH: but to date there have been no experiments demonstrating that
The Earth performed the experiment multiple times in the past and we are doing the experiment again today.
its not an experiment without a control model showing the lack of warming of the surface.
Problem is the earth’s sky is always changing and there is no control model and thus no knowledge regarding the source of warming that has been observed.
One must actually model the entire sky, at a minimum the entire solar system to understand orbital eccentricity that has been identified as a major source of climate change.
And of course the above doesn’t even mention that Seim and Olson observed the scattering of IR but no warming of the surface resulted so your ”Tyndall cuvette science” extrapolation to the greenhouse effect has been absolutely refuted.
Good point, Bill. There is no GHE that works with CO2.
Dr. Spencer mentioned the lid on a pot, comparing to a real greenhouse which has a roof. That works. And, it even works in the atmosphere for water vapor, as we’ve seen with the HTE. Water vapor has pretty much a full spectrum, as compared with CO2’s 15μ line.
Well the fact is as Dr. Syun-ichi Akasofu said. One must understand natural variation in order to understand anthropogenic variation.
Dr. Akasofu was simply pointing out that climate changes naturally and rapidly by all measures we have from ice cores, to ocean bottom sediments, to long records of river breakups and over freezes.
IMO, we have ignored insolation and the several ways that can vary over the entire surface of the earth.
We are regaled with a false narrative that orbital eccentricity variation is uniform rate of variation over 100,000 years without a single shred of science or logic to support that claim.
As I see it orbital eccentricity variation is a global phenomena increasing or decreasing global insolation.
this source puts the 3 milankovitch global parameters of axial precession, axial tilt, and eccentricity perturbation at 10% 25% and 50% with co2 making up the remaining 15%.
the first two are primarily allegedly determine glacial extent and has nothing to do with insolation. And can be disregarded as they are slow moving phenomena that has nothing signficant to do with industrial age warming.
So with ice core records showing greenland with about 15C variation and the antarctic with about 12c variation. The average of the two is about 13.5c. 50% of that is 6.75C attributable to orbit perturbation.
For the orbital perturbation UAH shows a slightly lower rate of mean warming for the polar regions than for the globe as a whole. So nothing to gain there.
Milankovitch had to do all his calculations by hand. all we have seen over the past 50 years is recompilations of Milankovitch’s undoubtedly scant estimates.
Somebody needs to rebuild Milankovitch using a modern computer models then and only then would we have something to work with as long as some level of transparency is required which apparently isn’t required of current climate models.
Here is the source forgot to insert that:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.194.4270.1121
I don’t know if this is in your reference. I couldn’t get through the paywall.
IIRC the key value controlling the switch between glacial and interglacial periods is the amount of summer sunlight reaching 65N latitude.
If this exceeds 530W/m^2 the ice and snow melts completely each Summer and you get an interglacial.
If it is less than 530W/m then ice and snow persist through the Summer and extra ice depth builds up each Winter. You end up with extensive ice sheets and a glacial period.
We are not talking about switching to or from glacial mode, in which axial tilt and precession is implicated as an additional perturbance.
We are just talking about changes in eccentricity on a scale where those are not a big factor that produces the variations seen in the ice core records during both interglacials and glacials. During the interglacials the ice and snow only melts completely along the coastlines.
The ones noted in Figure 2 of this partial Milankovitch record: https://ebme.marine.rutgers.edu/HistoryEarthSystems/HistEarthSystems_Fall2008/Week12a/Berger_Reviews_Geophysics_1988.pdf
I suspect he just came across some shorter termed orbital variations in his pursuit of finding the causes of the interglacial to glacial periods. Certainly it worthy of a modern effort using computers and more precisely prepared ephemerises, temperature proxy records, and abilities to measure distances and other relevant variations.
EM, the abstract has the summary breakdown of the milankovitch theory components. If you want the details look for an institution that has the full pdf.
Only one deals with the whole globe.
the issue is that Milankovitch came up with some estimates that are widely accept that arise from hand done calculations in the pre-computer model age.
I am early into my work and find high levels of correlation with temperature changes in the instrument record. None of that is attributable to CO2. I even find strong correlation with the warming of the past 40 years. Correlation with longer periods is greatly hampered because of a lack of reliable instrument records but what is there does show a good correlation all the way back to 1850 with no noticeable exceptions. I see very poor correlation to CO2. Thats why the models cannot duplicate the warming seen in the first half of the 20th century.
I am not claiming zero warming from CO2 just that it must be less than half the warming. In other words nothing to write home about. Gee mom the mean temperature here rose by a 1/4 degree in the past 40 years.
Bill, I am sorry to hear that you do not understand a fairly easy final exam question. Since the radiant energy from the radiant heat transfer gases (heat trapping gases) is omnidirectional, there is by definition as much radiant energy at each level of the atmosphere going toward outer space as there is transmitting back toward earth. Therefore, by a complex series of events, that most science educated people are able to understand, the surface of the earth attains a higher temperature than it would be without all of the feedback (back radiation) from the atmosphere. A higher temperature is needed for the heating of the sun to escape.
It is fairly easy to understand this qualitatively. The problem of making quantitative estimates using equations or computer simulations is that the exchange of heat (yes, heat) energy within the atmosphere is very complex, and there are other processes such as convection and latent heat.
The problem is how to quantify the effect, not whether it exists. Different gases have different radiant energy spectra. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil burning should have some effect, that can only be estimated. It cannot be accurately calculated or simulated.
Tim S says:
”Bill, I am sorry to hear that you do not understand a fairly easy final exam question.
Therefore, by a complex series of events, that most science educated people are able to understand, the surface of the earth attains a higher temperature than it would be without all of the feedback (back radiation) from the atmosphere. A higher temperature is needed for the heating of the sun to escape.”
——————
So your telling me. But what is the published source of this ”complex complex series of events, that most science educated people are able to understand” that you claim to understand?
You do have some experience with this right?
Bill Hunter
Try here. Particularly 7.3.2.1 and the associated references.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/
Bill, many years ago I attended a training session for fired heat transfer equipment. It turns out that the size and shape of the flame has no effect. The color in the flame is just visible light. It is thermal radiation in the IR range from the combustion gases that does most of the heat transfer to bare surfaces. Additional finned tubes exist in the convection section of large furnaces above the “radiant section” (where do they get that name?).
Do you have a gas stove or range? It is the combustion gases that make that work. Do the experiment. Get an industrial heat gun. They get really hot. Try to boil a pan of water with just hot air. Get back to us and report the results. An electric range also works by radiant heat transfer but from hot metal. That is why the newer ones can cover the element with a heat resistant glass.
The radiant heat transfer gases (greenhouse gases – heat trapping gases) in the atmosphere do the same thing except with a much weaker effect and over a much larger volume.
tim you obviously have not followed anything I have said.
Its also the case that the so-called IR is being overrated by you. The square distance law makes what you are saying feel like the case as the absorbing surface will only warm to some level where it is not giving off visible light.
Ernesto will maintain a course of 60 degrees W. Strong thunderstorms in central Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/dg62S0F/mimictpw-europe-latest.gif
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/FLOATER/AL052024/GEOCOLOR/20242311110-20242311810-ABI-AL052024-GEOCOLOR-1000×1000.gif
“The core description of the GHE is fairly simple science.”
And based upon a fundamentally flawed assumption, that the Earth is a cold BB warmed by the sun and then additionally warmed by the atmosphere..
Taking the limit of Earths cooling potential and trying to backtrack by adding atmosphere to ‘warm’ the surface of the Earth is to step into fantasyland…
the Earth of course once had a surface temp far above the boiling point of water, and has cooled despite solar input. It must continue to do so UNTIL it is a cold dead rock warmed only by the Sun.
Further the surface cooled dramatically when liquid water started reaching its surface.
Water with its unique heat capacity, high latent heat of evaporation, high emissivity and high condensation point make it an excellent transporter of heat from the surface to the point where it condenses out and radiates to space..
Water has kept the surface of Earth cool and its crust nice and thick for billions of years!
Happily this will continue as long as we have an ozone layer to protect our water and an oxygen supply (plants).
I agree. I would add that there is another source for maintaining the Earth’s temperature. These are tidal forces due to the Moon along with the Earth’s constant rotational speed.
Tidal forces work both ways, which helps in maintaining the ‘tidal lock’.
“Tidal locking” is for people that don’t understand gravity, orbital motions, and the associated physics.
Or, alternatively, those who understand them completely.
Do the numbers.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg#mw-jump-to-license
The surface loses 503 W/m^2; 398.2W/m^2 by radiation, 18.4W/m^2 by convection and 86.4W/m^2 by evaporation.
The surface absorbs 163W/m^2 from sunlight and 503-163 = 340W/m^2 from back radiation.
50%, 170W/m^2, comes from the H2O greenhouse effect. 25%, 85W/m^2, comes from clouds. 20%, 68W/m^2 comes from the CO2 greenhouse effect and 5%, 17W/m^2, from other gases.
The contribution from geological heating is 0.1W/m^2, almost too small to notice.