Don't be an ass. That isn't what I said. I was explaining why NOAA's datasets are not trustworthy. No more, no less.

On second thought, based on recent experience, I won't tell you to not be an ass anymore, because if you did you'd disappear.

My point in the last post, which I have made before and will repeat, is that either you're not competent to analyze this, or (probably more likely), you are attempting yet again to misdirect from the real science.

Your behavior has been classic: call someone who disagrees a nutcase (which you have done both explicitly and implicitly many times now) or "conspiracy theorist", and then when that doesn't work, and you are pushed to the wall, misdirect with half-answers that seem to be real but which are actually just straw-man arguments. You have done this so many times now it is becoming quite hilarious. But it's still a pain in the ass, and it's still antisocial behavior if not worse.

An actual, complete analysis of the situation gives actual, real answers which contradict your conclusions above. You have continued to try to weasel out of it, but it isn't working. The facts still remain and you're still wrong.

Actually, yes it is. This first example isn't NOAA, it is just for illustration, because it was a handy but excellent example of the same kind of shenanigans. (Note, I'm not claiming "conspiracy" here but incompetence and certain other circumstances can lead to the same net result.) The data is from official sources, the same datasets that scientists use, as is the progressive "adjustment" of same. The historical (official) record is quite clear. The linked story is not itself "the scientific literature", of course, but the official historical temperature data IS.

Now go look at NOAA and GISS explanations of their TOBS "adjustments" for just one more example, and compare them against analyses of the actual historical temperature records (which are, in fact, the very basis of much of the "scientific literature" ). It's not just there, it's all over the place for anyone who bothers to look. Not that I expect you to. You appear to want people to not look, by calling anyone who dares to question authority a nutcase conspiracy theorist.

Nice try, but it won't work.

There are LOTS of applications outside of gaming where more speed is appreciated. Especially if you're a professional. (Of course, it's arguable you didn't mean that when you said "personal" computing, but I'm not working in an office, and my work machine is my "personal" machine.)

I was chugging along with a c2d for a long time too. But there came a time when it was long past due for replacement.

I have looked this over, and looked at my references again. And you're still wrong. You're mischaracterizing the thermodynamics of this experiment rather egregiously. I don't know whether you are doing it intentionally or otherwise, but you're doing it.

I mentioned this to you several times, but you haven't picked up on it: just for one thing, you're claiming to be using flux but flux has an areal component which you are not accounting for. You say power in = power out, which may be true, but that total power is being transferred via emissive power, which is in W/m^2. Nowhere are you accounting for this. As I stated before: you are conflating power and emissive power, and you can't do that. Where are your areas? It might conserve energy but without areas you do not have the information required to calculate actual radiative temperature.

There are number of other factors you are 're not accounting for. My statement stands: your attempted analysis of Spencer's thought experiment is nothing but a clusterfuck pretending to be physics.

I told you where you can find a complete treatment of the actual thermodymics of this situation. If you'd actually read it and understood it (and were honest), you'd know that with a reasonable degree of precision it is correct.

You state on your website:

Yes, this is true (with the exception of the word "only"), but you are neglecting so many other factors that this statement is meaningless in context. Nobody is claiming this statement is essentially wrong... in fact I've made it myself several times. But the devil is in the details. As you show quite well by going on to misapply it:

This is a joke, right? Trying to see if I'd catch it?

Again, among other things you are substituting irradiance for power without factoring in any area. That's just simply bad math. And I repeat: you have also invalidly ignored other factors which may not be ignored.

Create a realistic scenario, draw yourself a diagram, and run some actual numbers on them rather than just tossing equations around without seeing how they fit together in the real world.

I repeat: get the experiment with the two separate plates (actively heated plate and passive plate) right first. Then you can move on to a fully-enclosing plate. You say it's simpler but in a way it's not; you're trying to ride a bicycle when you haven't even managed to ride your tricycle without falling off.

There are numerous sources, including physics and engineering textbooks, which contradict your analysis and conclusions. Why don't you try the engineering textbooks Latour cited, which have examples of real-world situations? After all: ultimately what we're talking about here is the real world, not a thought experiment.

You nailed nothing. I am not a "birther", or other kind of conspiracy nut. The problems with NOAA temperature adjustments (like TOBS for just one example) are well documented. No conspiracy necessary. Just incompetence.

You're trying to teach your mistaken notions about economics to the wrong person.

Keynesian economics is largely about government interventionism. This is primarily what separates it from more objective macroeconomic theory.

And even mainstream economists today reject the idea that FDR brought the country out of the depression. On the contrary... many say he prolonged it for as much as 10 unnecessary years. His own Treasury secretary thought he was crazy.

It seems pretty obvious to me.

You were responding to someone who derided "trickle-down". The problem being that the same school of thought that was responsible for "trickle-down" is still advising the President and the Fed.

You mentioned that Obama was a "constitutional scholar", and implied we should be more angry over that than over some actor. My point was that we should be at least as leery of Obama's economics as Reagan's. (And in fact, the Keynesian economics is not working any better now than it did then.)

Correction: some time tomorrow or over the weekend. Not in the morning. I have other things to do.

I'll answer in the morning. You haven't demonstrated what you think you have.

I'm just not going to take it very seriously if it's yet another "adjusted" dataset from NOAA. There are too many demonstrated problems with their "adjustments".

Besides, the father of "trickle-down", Art Laffer, was a dyed-in-the-wool Keynesian economist (and still is). Which means that he was a card-carrying member of the same group of nutjobs who are still advising the Fed (and the Feds) on economics.

Didn't work then. Doesn't work now. (Not just trickle-down, I mean Keynesian interventionist economics.)

I just get a laugh about how today's Liberals think the current administration's economics are going to save us all, when in reality it's all the same shit, different day.

You are implying that my stance on AGW is because of politics? Hahahaha! That's a hoot.

And re: Latour, your argument is just asinine. Especially from someone who claims to be a physicist. First, your bathtub analogy is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand. A plate near the heat source is NOT even remotely the same as closing the drain on a bathtub, because the total power out of the system (it's a closed system with heat being removed, remember?) remains constant, as you have so conveniently observed. The plate has no influence whatever on the state of the whole system. You are neglecting the (physically) largest part of it, which is the outside wall.

You are neglecting other things as well. For example, you're conflating electrical power with "emissive power" or irradiance, which are different things, in different units. Sheesh. You'd at least expect a "physicist" to get that much right.

So I gave that much away. And you still didn't deserve it. Further, you are still denying the S-B law, though you continue to deny that you're denying it.

And there is more. I haven't given away anything that you should not have been able to easily figure out yourself. One has to wonder why you didn't.

But here's the kicker: it is abundantly obvious that the things you have done were NOT done for purposes of saving "civilization". Because if they were, you'd have taken them to the doorstep of the people who are actually responsible for dessiminating them to the public, rather than someone in a completely different field on Slashdot. Gotcha. Your intention has merely been to smear me, by whatever cheating means you have managed to come up with. The evidence is all over Slashdot. Look in a mirror, man.

Now I have given you your bone, doggie. GO AWAY.

And if you really are dying, I will leave you with this parting gift:

Despite your obsession, and the extent of your research, I still know things you don't. Why do you think I've felt free to be so glib? I've been watching you make a fool of yourself, ever since you revealed what a despicable human being you are (again, just my opinion of course, but I've had some confirmation).

My advice to go do something more worthwhile was sincere. Because if you don't, after you are gone, I will quite happily reveal those things and your "legacy" won't be quite what you thought it was.

That's not a threat in any way, it's just a description of the truth. I haven't been attacking YOU, it has all been coming FROM you. And this topic on Slashdot is just one more example that anybody can see. I have defended myself where I felt it to be necessary, but NOBODY else on this Earth has made it necessary. Just you. I haven't tracked you down and harassed you. You have done that to me. I haven't made a habit of jumping in to other conversations, just to try to humiliate YOU. But you have done so to me. Etc., etc ad nauseum.

So get stuffed. I am far beyond tired of your incessant BULLSHIT. If you want to contemplate something before you die, I would suggest starting with meditating on why you have been such an incorrigibly rude, insufferable human being who makes a habit out of maliciously harassing others. Was it your own upbringing?

I see. It was I who misunderstood what you were saying.

Example of this "dogma" you claim?