Joshua

angech | September 30, 2022 at 1:49 am |
Joshua | September 29, 2022 at 8:52 pm |
angech – Why no response? Someone who doesn’t know you might think you’re hiding. –
Joshua I gave you a response at the right site.

Angech September 28, 2022 at 4:52 pm
“Oh ” The point isn’t that I was right and you were wrong.”
The point is you were wrong.”

Two points.
I doubt very much that ATTP wants this post sidetracked by your tactics of changing subjects and then making personal attacks.
Particularly when you are wrong.

You asked me for an opinion so that you could get a response and then attack that response.
I gave a response.
You attacked that response.
All fine and good.
Somehow in your insistence at trying to be so clever you missed a couple of salient points.
You were wrong.
The statement in question was correct at the time it was made based on the premises it was made on and the data available at that time.

A few months later you claim I said that it was certain that he was correct.
I repeat
The statement in question was correct at the time it was made based on the premises it was made on and the data available at that time.
You also claim you said “there was too much uncertainty to draw such a conclusion.”
Obviously at the time the statement was made there was no such uncertainty. The infection rate dropped and stayed low for some time.
Any reasonable commentator, at that time, was certainly able to make such a claim based on his argument at the time.
Which was what he did.

In hindsight, the best vision of all, one can always muster an argument about uncertainties. Perhaps you remember the USA losing a certain basketball match?
I remember an Aussie ice skater winning a gold.
At the time when the events were being held you would have been laughed out of the court and off the rink to suggest uncertainty.
I hope that explains it.
Have another go if you want.
But try and get it right this time

At the top-of-atmosphere (TOA]

The average global net radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is defined as the difference between the energy absorbed and emitted by the planet.
In an equilibrium climate state, the global net radiation at the TOA is zero.
In the presence of an increasing climate forcing, an imbalance between the energy absorbed and emitted occurs,
and in response the climate system must react to restore the balance (e.g., by changing temperature).
The rate at which the earth reacts is modulated by its capacity to store energy.
Given that oceans are 10 times more efficient at storing heat than other components of the climate system (e.g., land, ice, atmosphere; Levitus et al. 2001),
the global net radiation at the TOA should be in phase with and of similar magnitude as the global ocean heat storage.

At the top-of-atmosphere (TOA), the Earth’s energy budget involves a balance between how
much solar energy Earth absorbs and how much terrestrial thermal infrared radiation is emitted to space.
Since only radiative energy is involved, this is also referred to as Earth’s radiation budget (ERB). NG Loeb, W Su et al 2016

A natural balance exists in the Earth system between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation that is emitted back to space as either light (direct reflection of sunlight)
or heat (infrared emission from surfaces).
This balance, referred to as Earth’s radiation budget (ERB), determines the climate of the Earth and makes our planet hospitable for life.
Chemical Sciences Laboratory NOAA

Earth’s Energy Budget
The TOA ERB describes the balance between how much solar energy the Earth absorbs and how much terrestrial thermal infrared radiation it emits.
N.G. Loeb, … W.F. Miller, in Comprehensive Remote Sensing, 2018

For ATTP on origin of galaxies

angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 20, 2022 at 6:35 am

izen says: July 18, 2022 at 2:16 pm
“One is the comment that we can see galaxies 13.8 billion years ago.
No one explains how the further out we look we find galaxies and stars That we compare to our own even though they have not existed as such for 13.8 billion years.”
The universe is much larger than 13.8 billion years across due to space expansion, the most recent estimate I have seen is around 95 billion light years.”

Size of the visible universe is partly dependent on how good our “optics” are.
If something is out there 14.2 billion light years away we probably would not see [detect ]it with our current science.
As DM said “How bright would a mega star have to be”.
Even other universes from other big bangs [if we consider our “universe” to have a single origin would be hard pressed to trouble the cosmic microwave background radiation let alone be seen.

The size of the visible universe is thus only double the 13.8 billion years, 27.6 billion years.
Since it has been expanding at less than the speed of light [caveat] the actual universe would be only perhaps 54 billion years old at the moment.

“The universe is around 95 billion light years across.” is an estimate based on maths and physics theories and until everyone agrees on those we might be better sticking to the speed of light time and distance observations.
Thank you for putting it and the concept up.
The big bang itself had so much matter and energy that our current concepts of time and the speed of light back then go out the window.

angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 20, 2022 at 6:56 am

…and Then There’s Physics says: July 18, 2022 at 7:29 am

“As I understand it, the galaxies in the galaxy cluster that was imaged by JWST were about 4.6 billion years old”.

The articles being written by journalists seem to be conflating such galaxies with the concept of being able to look back a lot further in time.

The original hot explosion or event being that long ago that the first clumps of plasma for want of a better word were supposed to form mega stars of very short life span which threw out clumps of matter [including some heavier elements than H, He] to form the original galaxies which were also very large [hence visible faintly] and then possibly another two iterations to get to our young star and young galaxy.
The materials greater than iron on the periodic table, gold being the best example, are thought to have come from arcane processes in past supernovae.

It is hard to imagine our sun being the remnant of a 13.8 billion year chunk of hop plasma cooling down over that length of time.
Further such explosions cause escape speed velocities which mean that the galaxies should never have come back together.

An alternative view is that space was filled with large amounts of cooled down matter in waves of explosions that crossed each other causing focal points of reaccumulation resulting in newer smaller galaxies.
This would explain suns forming from gigantic masses of cold hydrogen, etc hitting or passing through each other leaving focal eddies of matter which could then coalesce to form suns and planets.

and how elliptical orbits of planets and stars can come into being.

Thanks angech

Rotary speech 13/7/2022 Role of Chairman

Dear fellow Rotarians

Could I ask you all to stand and join me in drinking a toast [invocation

For good food , good fellowship and the opportunity to serve rotary, we give thanks

-pause

Now I will ask the sergeant of the day, Ian Powell, to give the Loyal toast

Ian Powell
[“To Rotary International and Australia.”]

Thank you Ian

and you will always be sustained by the fellowship and esteem of us all.

welcome back to our first meeting following a changing of the guard last week.
I note that the ROTARY THEME FOR July This month’s theme is New Leadership Month

Some small steps to go through
I welcome everyone here today especially our new President Andrew, our new Paul Harris medal recipient, Danny, and especially our new member, Phil Stammers.
We also have present our past District chair Laurie Fagan and his wife anne
and other Rotary club members geoff and tracey.
I would like to call on Rotary members present to introduce their guests.
Phil [wife]

I will now hand over to Ian to conduct the meeting

or

starting with any announcements from club directors and any news that members of the club would like to share business for the day.

I will hand over to the Sergeant of the day for our fines session.

Check that the person introducing the guest speaker is present [me]
and has received the speaker’s resume
and has sufficient information to give a dignified introduction.

Check that the person doing the Thanks to Speaker [me]is in attendance and has the certificate or gift, as appropriate in your club.


THE FOUR-WAY-TEST … What does it mean?
For Rotary, The Four-Way Test is the cornerstone of all action. It has been for years, and it will be in the future. Of the things we think, say or do
Is it the TRUTH? Is it FAIR to all concerned Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS? Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?
The test is one of the hallmarks of Rotary. Since it was developed in 1932 by Herbert J. Taylor, who later became RI president, it has never ceased to be relevant. Its four brief questions are not based on culture or religion. Instead, they are a simple checklist for ethical behavior. They transcend generations and national borders.
As Rotarians, we should have The Four-Way Test in mind in every decision we make, all day long.
Rotary is dedicated to causes that build international relationships, improve lives, and create a better world to support our peace efforts and end polio forever.
We now have a new President, Andrew Pogue ,who will be to carry out Rotary’s Objective,
with its five avenues of service as a constant guide.
It is also the day on which we ask our new member Phil Stammers to tell us a bit more about himself.
It is with pleasure that I now extend to you the right hand of Rotary fellowship & give you a hearty welcome as a member of the Rotary Club of_S Central
Before we go further can I mention our guests for today,
would also congratulate past President Danny Hogan on his second Paul Harris Medal
A WELCOME…to District Governor 2022-2023 MINA HOWARD? no
Idea Contribute to a Guest Speaker Ban
1,200,000 members, 35,000 clubs worldwide; 197 countries in world

Stop the Ukraine War.

The power of individuals to enact change on their own is minute.
Collective action is a little better but is limited takes a lot of time and effort.
Social media allows Multiple groups across the world to engage in collective action at the same real time.
This magnifies the ability to create change quickly.

The wear in the Ukraine needs action on multiple fronts.
It needs leadership from the major representatives of our countries and grass roots action.

The United Nations must unite and put out a call for the war to stop immediately.
The aggressor, in this case Russia, should be stripped of all rights of representation at all levels until the war stops.

Europe and Nato must issue similar calls for the war to stop and offer to put in peacekeeping forces now.
The United Nations, Europe and Nato should send peace keeping forces in regardless now.
Not to fight unless fired on.
Only to go in if Ukraine supports their coming in.
To leave immediately if the Ukraine requests.
With a large number of countries represented by troops on the ground Russia will have to halt its indiscriminate bombing.

The USA should also offer to send troops in on these conditions
All other world countries including the big two India and China should help.
People on the ground, not fighting but ready to respond would create a situation the Russian army would not want to upset.

Volunteers could be called up to go in such a situation, similar to the Spanish Civil war, not to fight but too prevent fighting.
The slow build up and reluctance to take even a defensive helpful position has created an extremely bad image for all nations.
This would not be needed if the nations of the world do what they should have done in the first place.
Time for them to step forwards and act, not aggressively, but defensively, saying we are all in this together.
Send enough people in so the Russians cannot kill people.

The other side of the coin is the Russian people themselves.
A reckoning needs to be called within Russia.
Over the last 10 years the Russians have been mixing better with the rest of the world on the internet and logistically.
People in St Petersberg and Moscow have enjoyed freedoms that they thought were guaranteed until now.
Social Media impact must register and does register.
Everyone who has an option, tweeting, facebooking [if allowed], phoning should do it.
They need to push and push for peace with their politicians.
They must put out a call for the Russian people to take action and demand their leader change course.
This is possible in the new Russia, and needs people to be reassured that their actions will be supported.

angech | April 30, 2022 at 6:41 am | Reply

On a lighter note the last day of April and soon a new global temperature for April.
Currently the year is running about 6th warmest.
We have had two of the weakest La Ninas I have ever seen after a strong El Nino with carried on warmth between the two La Ninas which hardly budged the BOM chart.

Now we have a series of interesting factors in play.
Cold waters coming up the South American Coast.
Cool Eastern Pacific waters.
A SOI of 21.8 when it looked like going negative.
A mild rise in UAH only in March.
Antarctic ice still under but rising slightly.
Arctic Ice in the 10th lowest and has been 12th lowest recently.
The ducks are all lined up in a row for a drop in April Global Temperatures.
I hate writing this because Roy Spencer reads it and it causes the UAH to go the other way.

Nonetheless a big drop in temperatures for April.
If Only.

Difficulties

” And where does it leave the alleged Earth’s greenhouse warming effect?
288K -220K=78K and because of Earth’s faster rotation a couple degrees less, perhaps.”

If the earth was an airless rock, your example fails . It could not have a GHG atmosphere so it would not be 288K in the first place

As it has faster rotation it would be a couple of degrees warmer than the moon surface,not less. so warmer than 220 K. As a bare rock.

As a planet with an atmosphere and a temp of 288C.
It now receives less energy to the surface directly.
and more energy to the atmosphere.
The energy in the atmosphere radiates in all directions thus lengthening the time some of the radiation takes to get in and increasing the number of CO2 atoms that are actively in the energy pathways.The net efect is

How Te and T mean change with an atmosphere compared to no atmosphere.

This is actually very good and effective reasoning with a salient point at the end.
Worth publishing?
” That is why the effective temperature for Moon is so much higher Te =271K, than the satellite measured Moon’s mean surface temperature Tsat = 220K.
It is because they have not considered the Moon’s specular reflection.
As a result the theoretical Te for Moon was overestimated by 271K – 220K = 51oC”

Both the earth and the moon receive the same amount of radiation per square meter. 1361 W/M2 fact.

Both [reflection and emissions added] send 1361 W/M2 back into space per meter of disc or a quarter of this averaged over a sphere or half of this per meter averaged over a hemisphere. fact

The albedo of the moon 0.11
The albedo of earth 0.306 fact.

Specular radiation does not change this. Fact

The TE of the moon Te 270.4 C and that of the earth is Te 254 C due to the difference in the amount of light reflected only. Fact.

The Tmean and the Te for the moon surface are both measured at the moon surface as with virtually no atmosphere They are at the same level which is therefore the Moons TOA
The T mean is lower because the moon surface respective to the sun rotates extremely slowly hence the average of the cold and hot side surfaces is always lower than Te. Fact

The Tmean and Te for the earth or any planet with an atmosphere are measured at different levels.
A square meter at the earth surface is much larger at the Te height at the TOA.
Hence the surface of the earth radiates more energy per square meter and is hotter than the TE at the TOA where it is measured.
Fact

This is why the Earth is 33 degrees warmer.
It has an atmosphere with GHG whose absorption and emission profiles exactly match that needed to make the temperature differential occur.
Exactly. Fact

That is why we have radiative science and are able to measure temperatures from satellites. Fact

This would happen whether the planet is rotating or not. Fact

A rotating planet helps push the Tmean up to the Te for an airless planet
A rotating air planet is warmer than an airless planet at the surface
The Te does not change for an airless or air planet

Note the following conundrum or corollary and proof 17/3/2022.

Theoretically we could try imagine an atmospheric planet with a Te less than the Tmean.
All planets with no atmosphere have a Te higher than the Tmean.
All planets with an atmosphere should have a Te lower than the Tmean
Where does the crossover point occur?
The ingenious answer to this must be as soon as one designates a planet to have an atmosphere.
The Te must rise above the surface of the air planet yet fall below the Tmean of the the surface whether it is rotating or not.
This means that the TOA will always be higher in a rotating air planet.

Willis TOA

February 12, 2022 3:08 pm

I love TOA posts.
The topic has been raised by Willis on a number of occasions
and shows that most other people have fixed ideas and not many clues.
[This applies to me as well].

The first point is definition.
Where Is The Top Of The Atmosphere.
Cannot be answered without a definition of what is the TOA.
I note the proviso.
QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS
So just what is the TOA?
0
Reply
angech
Reply to
angech
February 12, 2022 3:20 pm

Willis includes a definition in his topic today.

(TOA) radiation at the top of the atmosphere . This is the TOA balance between incoming sunlight (after some of the sunlight is reflected back to space) and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) from the surface and the atmosphere.

The definition needs a number of important details added or clarified.
For instance is there a TOA on the dark side?
After all there is no incoming sunlight there.
Is the TOA a mathematical abstraction for the whole of the planet?
It is usually taken this way.
Is the TOA variable over the whole of the planet?
Yes.
The TOA locally is higher when the amount of incident sunlight is higher.
How does one address the fact that there is not an easily definable TOA on the darkside?. Do we take the lit side and average it with the dark side?
Yes.
And No.
The TOA can be considered as an averagefor the whole planet, treating it as a black-body [absorbed radiation] or as a grey body utilising albedo effect on the whole incident radiation.
0
Reply
angech
Reply to
angech
February 12, 2022 3:33 pm

Where Is The Top Of The Atmosphere.
Where is the TOA ?

A lot of different answers which is why I would appreciate an exact definition of which one we are discussing.

One answer is that we consider the amount of sunlight incident on a disc the circumference of the earth at a distance of one solar unit from the sun on a plane parallel to the centre of the earth.
The top of the atmosphere is then defined as the average distance to that spherical surface that energy would radiate from if that surface was at the blackbody temperature fot that energy received by the disc.

Phew..

I doubt anyone can come up with a much better more exact definition although it has flaws.

Any takers?

A key flaw neglected by all is that the earth, having an atmosphere actually receives more energy that hits the atmosphere but missed the disc of the earth as that energy is absorbed by the atmosphere at the periphery but would miss the earth if there was no atmosphere.
The whole absorbing area is a disc of which the earth centre is only a major part.
I hope Willis factors this in.
0
Reply
angech
Reply to
angech
February 12, 2022 3:46 pm

There are two deeply conflicting ideas at play here.

One is the idea that an imbalance must exist because

• In order to restore the balance so that incoming solar radiation equals outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), the surface perforce must, has to, is required to warm up until there’s enough additional upwelling longwave to restore the balance.

The other that physics absolutely dictates that the outgoing energy must equal the in-going energy.

There are time frames involved that suggest this is not so.
Physical observations that suggest this is not so
Leading to this statement that seems to make absolute sense.

• The amount of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases (methane, CFCs, etc.) is increasing. • This absorbs more upwelling longwave radiation, which leads to unbalanced radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). This is the TOA balance between incoming sunlight (after some of the sunlight is reflected back to space) and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) from the surface and the atmosphere.

However, boring everyone to tears,
The two ideas as stated are fundamentally incompatible.
Hence we ignore the very physics everything is based on
To go with a concept of plausible imbalance.
0
Reply
angech
Reply to
angech
February 12, 2022 3:54 pm

The two definitely coexist but are incompatible as we view physics on our intuition and observation.
One concept I have toyed with is that what we see on our time scale is not what is actually happening in the true time space continuum.
Just as the sun and the earth are travel ling in straight paths through time space but we see one orbiting around the other.
The explanation for this phenomenon is that distance and time warp.
If the time is the same the distance is different. If the distance is the same the time is different depending on frame of reference.

I could and have argued that what we see as a build up of energy is really just our perception and the reality is that the energy entering and leaving the system actually has to balance.

Crappy argument but the best example I could give for a possible divergence.
0
Reply
angech
Reply to
angech
February 12, 2022 4:06 pm

If not, what are we left with?

The definition of a TOA which is physically real rules out the very accumulation of energy that we see in the atmosphere.

Again physics V observation.

I point out that if a TOA exists, at the TOA , by any definition, the energy in always equals the energy going out.

Must. Should. Could. Does.

If not, do not call it a TOA..

To illustrate.
Shine a light on an object and turn it off and describe to yourself the energy flow.

I defy anybody to show how the energy stays in or on the object.
How after it is shone and turned off the object can legally retain any of that energy.
This is talking pure physics of energy and objects, and not solar batteries or internal energies, nuclear energies etc.

Again any takings arguing physics?
0
Reply
angech
Reply to
angech
February 12, 2022 4:26 pm

Hence as energy cannot be stored how can we talk about an energy imbalance?
There are three possible states?
Energy coming in.
Energy going out.
Energy going out coming back in and going out again.

At all stages they are equal
At the TOA specifically the actual amount of radiation out is the full amount the earth receives in

I could try to say that energy in equals energy out at all levels,not just at the TOA .
The reason the earth’s surface is hotter than the TOA is that the light and short wave that gets through is converted to IR at the surface [did not touch the atmosphere on the way through] and being back radiated heats the surface up much more than the atmosphere.
The thicker GHG atmosphere at the surface heats up the surface and itself until that outgoing energy reaches the level at which it is not blocked from going out.
No energy imbalance.
Everything is in balance.
Just the radiating surfaces are hotter which they have to be with that degree of radiation passing through
Not absorbed, Not stored.
R Ellison put it beautifully. The delay in that energy getting back out to space is microscopically small.
0
Reply
angech
Reply to
angech
February 12, 2022 4:36 pm

The upshot of this is that there is no
• In order to restore the balance so that incoming solar radiation equals outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), the surface perforce must, has to, is required to warm up until there’s enough additional upwelling longwave to restore the balance.

The surface appears to warm up with radiation because we measure the temperature by measuring radiation, usually infra red.
What are we measuring?
We are measuring outgoing radiation.
The molecule has cooled down because that radiation has left it.
As we measure that it is it is warm no longer.
When there is back radiation we measure radiation and back radiation leaving those now cooler bodies.

So sure it is hotter when more sun comes in.
When there is more water and CO2 GHG causing more back radiation on the way out from the light that reached the surface unimpeded.
But no storage.
There is no retention.
No imbalance.
0
Reply
angech
Reply to
angech
February 12, 2022 5:10 pm

As a final comment, sorry Willis, for taking up so much space, consider the so called TOA measurements showing the so called but impossible imbalances.

Firstly they can be positive or negative, always.
Which means they are variations in the ability of the measuring instruments, not real.

There are two types of measurement, counting Earth shine estimations which agree poorly with Ceres particularly the last few years.
Satellites can and should take in most of the radiation from the earth.
Of course this means they would assess a TOA greater than what they claim to measure as they would get the radiation that hits the atmosphere outside of the disc of the earth, but who cares about a 3-10% discrepancy or adjustment due to this.
Does anyone know how this particular adjustment is done or do they even bother?

Roy Spencer has categorically asserted that the satellites make large errors in assessing IR in regions with cloud cover.
Large errors.
Anyone care to corroborate this?
Anyway the Satellites offer the best assessment even though they are 10% or more out.

“TOA fluxes based on ADMs from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) applied to the same CERES radiance measurements show a 10% relative increase with viewing zenith angle in the SW and a 3.5% (9 W/sq m) decrease with viewing zenith angle in the LW.”


To sum up,

Energy imbalance as a concept allows de novo creation of energy in the atmosphere [storage of energy] which then allows GHG propnents to claim extra warming can continue to occur when physically all the energy that comes in [and there is a heck of a lot over 8 minutes from the sun] has gone 8 minutes later
We merelt observe. like with a thermometer how much energy is in our local area.
The world warms up and cools down through 15- 30C range every day.
No batteries store it at night or during the day.

Fermat

Fermat’s theorem solved correctly and simply.
Paper written on 28/12/2021.
By Dr H W. Lee. Mb, Bs

Fermat made a conjecture that no two positive numbers greater than 2
could be raised to a power greater than 2 and yet add together to form a third positive number to the same power.
This is trivially true due to the fact that when any two such numbers are added it creates an extra factor of 2 in the resultant third number.
which means that any reduction in the number by the power cannot be a positive complete number.
The easiest way to show this is to take two simple cubes such as 8 and 27 or a and b.
There is always a gap between the first and second cubes in any sum
The resultant addition is always the first cube added to itself plus the gap between the first and second cubes.
Therefore any cube has to equal the first cube doubled plus the gap between the first and second cubes.

Since both the gap b-a and and the first cube a are cubes
this can be written in 2 ways
2a^3 +b ^3
or 2b^3 +a^3
When a and b are two different numbers they add up to 2 different sums.

Thus the one simple sum of addition gives 2 different answers
If the numbers do add up to a third number it would have to be the same either way.
Since it is not, neither answer can be correct
so two cubes cannot equal a third numerical cube.

Further every a and b as a gap does form a cube with two cubes.
But only when those cubes are half of a real cube.
Hence 2[1/2 a^3] +b^3 = c^3 but only when the 1/2 cubes add to form a real cube.
Similarly 2[1/ b^3] + a^3 = c^3 but only when the gap is a half gap or cube
In other words for every gap b-a there is a cube c^3 which = 1/2 a^3
where two such cubes can form a cube but only if they themselves first add to a cube.

So when the cube is doubled it always has a factor of the square root of two as a cube and
therefore cannot form a cube with a numerical cube root when added to a cube with a numerical cube root.
When swapped around the same logic applies to the gap as a cube.
If it is a cube b^3 [ eg 19] then it will form a doubled cube 2b^3 that has to add to a cube a [8] to form a numeric cube and again,
as a doubled cube it cannot make a rational numeric cube root capable of adding to the gpa which is now the cube 8.