Laws governing some guns here still use foot pound second as the legal measurement.
You are taking this a step to far.Do you know how to live off the Grid?
GP was being sarcastic. However, it's true that it's an alarming trend. And it's only a trend because people have allowed it to be.
"Owning" a phone is much more complex than owning a plunger.
I *OWN* my phone. It's rooted and unlocked, and I do what *I* want with it, not what some large corporation thinks I should do with it. They get the information I want to give them, and little else.
It's time to take back "things"! Say NO to subscription services. Say NO to term contracts. Buy it, own it, do what you want with it.
In the general sense, this kind of regulation is nanny-state micromangement.
I don't disagree, but that has nothing to do with my argument. They chose their particular waste management methods. They choose to enforce them. We might disagree with the law but it's not your law or mine.
Wow, Joel, I gotta say (after reading some of the replies on this thread) that this really is pointless. These folks have no conception of the FIRST law of thermodynamics, let alone the second. The argument for warming doesn't even require mentioning the SBE, it only requires the first law, the second law, and a monotonic relation between temperature difference in ANY channel and the rate of energy transfer in that channel, subject to very broad constraints.
Funny, because he's contradicting just about every argument behind the whole idea of AGW. I like how he makes these claims but isn't able to show how it actually works. He claims you can show warming via back-radiation WITHOUT the S-B equation? When it is absolutely fundamental to the very "energy transfer" he is asserting? What garbage.
Where's the math? In the comments you show in your link he also conflates backscatter with the "back radiation". But scattering and reflection are straw-men; they are completely unrelated to heat transfer via "back-radiation", and are 100% irrelevant to Spencer's experiment.
His mention of "empirical evidence" isn't science, it's an assertion of correlation without any causal link. It's a ridiculously weak argument... in fact it's not really an argument at all.
But seriously, just a waste of time. When people just make stuff up and reject the contents of ELEMENTARY textbooks on the subject because they just don't like the conclusion those contents lead to, how can you argue with them? If somebody tries to solve the light bulb problem while pretending that it doesn't primarily cool via radiation and completely ignoring radiation, what can you do?
And this is downright hilarious in context. In incorrectly "solving" Spencer's challenge, YOU ignored basic textbook methods and math to get your answer. You used an imaginary "khayman80" method of arriving at your answer, which not only contradicts everything engineering textbooks say about heat transfer, your methodology directly contradicts the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, even though you used it yourself in calculations. Talk about hypocrisy. I repeat: I checked your final "answer" for temperature of the heat source and it violates both the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the second law of thermodynamics.
Further, what he was referring to in the latter paragraph were the comments in the forum... not Latour's analysis.
That's odd. Just yesterday Jane had no argument with Dr. Shore. Now Jane claims that Dr. Shore "FUCKED UP" his physics.
So? I'm still not arguing with him. I'm not even arguing with you. I've already showed you to be wrong. Let's get this straight: THIS "argument" has been with YOU, and ONLY you, and ONLY about Spencer's experiment. It's over, and you lost. All this other crap you bring up is just your way of trying to hide your own failure. It isn't working.
When a body is in equilibrium with its surroundings, it radiates and absorbs energy at the same rate and so its temperature remains constant. When a body is hotter than its surroundings, it radiates more energy than it absorbs, and so it cools..."
NONE of the bodies in Spencer's challenge are "in equlibrium" with their surroundings. None of them. Not one. Straw-man.
Maybe the Slayers could explain how uncooled IR detectors see cooler objects?
Straw-man. Our argument involved gray bodies, not detectors of specific wavelengths or electronics that take advantage of specific quantum effects. But I have an answer anyway: they measure DIFFERENCES, not absolute radiation. You might be interested in THIS, which explains how IR pyrometers work. Hint: they don't work the way you seem to think they do.
And it's a straw-man in a different way: I repeat that I have NOT been claiming that no radiation from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body. What I claimed, I repeat, is that no NET radiative energy transfer occurs from cooler bodies to warmer. That concept does not conflict with the ability of infrared cameras or pyrometers to detect "cooler" radiation. Energy can be absorbed and re-emitted... and often (for non-gray-bodies) it is re-emitted in different wavelengths. But the fact remains that there is still no NET energy transfer from cooler to warmer. If there were, it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
My argument has always been about NET heat transfer. I have explained to you many times that I do NOT claim no radiation from cooler bodies is ever absorbed. My argument is, and has been, about NET. And further, contrary to your own assertions, since the NET energy transfer from cooler bodies is ZERO, it is not included in the "radiative power out" term of heat transfer equations. Which is a concept that (apparently, if we assume you're being honest, which I doubt) you have had supreme difficulty getting through your head.
So just knock off the straw-man crap. You're very good at it, but I'm better at seeing it than you are at dishing it out.
Jane/Lonny Eachus wins a silver medal in psychological projection for telling me to "be a man for a change" but Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan still takes the gold.
And the ad-hominem too. You can claim all you want that your personal attacks have nothing to do with your arguments, but you have many times proved otherwise. Just knock off the bullshit. It isn't getting you anywhere.
A Federal judge ruled a few months ago that the FAA has no authority EXCEPT in controlled airspace. And "controlled" airspace isn't most or even much of the air around us.
The FAA's authority is derived from INTERSTATE TRAVEL AND COMMERCE. Anything else is none of its business.
If you aren't sending your drone commercially across State lines, or invading controlled airspace, they have no legal basis for "regulating" you.
The FAA has appealed the decision, but pending appeal they have seemed to want to put as many regulations in place as they can before the November election. I wonder why.
Venus proves nothing about CO2-based warming on Earth. If you ASSUME it's causing warming here, then you can ASSUME it causes warming there, in proportion. Such assumptions prove nothing.
For some reason, you seem to think these continuing comments of yours prove something. The only reason I'm reading them at all is for a daily laugh, and to record them so others later can laugh with me.
Does Jane have the memory of a goldfish? Of course Jane has argued with these other physicists. Jane personally asked [slashdot.org] Prof. Brown about Sky Dragon Slayerism, but wasn't able to "educate" him.
As usual, you distort reality. Prof. Brown had nothing in the way of refutation or rebuttal or even retort to my second comment? Don't you find that interesting? I do.
As for Joel Shore, again he was mis-applying an equation for heat transfer when he should have been using the equation for radiant power out. Both you and Shore insist on mis-applying this equation in a way that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's rather amusing that you brought him up, because you both FUCKED UP YOUR PHYSICS in a similar way.
But again, this is all straw-man bullshit. NONE of them were ever able to actually refute Latour's math with real-world examples. Spencer failed, YOU failed in your analysis of Spencer, etc.
Engineers the world over do the math the way I did. So far that hasn't resulted in you either freezing or burning to death in your home. If they're all crazy, you might want to ask yourself why.
The reason the Earth is not catastrophically warming due to CO2, and the reason you aren't literally burning alive due to your home's heating system, are the same: "warmist" back-radiation physics is bullshit.
Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus actually means that he intends to show where mainstream physics "went wrong" according to the Sky Dragon Slayers. There are many ignorant, stupid physicists that Jane/Lonny Eachus needs to educate: Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society, etc.
You have demonstrated yourself to be utterly inept at knowing "what I actually mean".
These are just straw-man arguments, as usual. I have no argument with these other physicists. It was about Spencer's challenge and how YOU got it wrong, nothing more. Have you asked them, personally, about Spencer's experiment? (No, you haven't, or you would know you were wrong.)
Bringing up OTHER arguments like greenhouse gases won't win THAT argument for you. You have already lost it.
And that last sentence is not an argument, it's just a statement of fact.
Jane made no such claim? Jane keeps making that absurd claim! Again, the link [thermalradiation.net] I've repeatedly [slashdot.org] given Jane [slashdot.org] shows that for smaller radius R1, F21 = (R1/R2)^2 = 0.9978.
I will make this one correction here. Yes, the view factor I mentioned was the wrong one, from the inside of the enclosing sphere to the heat source. (Or from the chamber wall to the outside of the enclosing sphere, which just happens to be the same due to specified dimensions.) Of course it is not the same from the chamber wall to the heat source. But that is the only mistake I made here.
But (this is not for you, but for other readers): because ALL of the incoming cooler radiation is reflected or scattered, and no NET amount is absorbed, it goes right back out your boundary. The rest that misses the heat source also goes right back out your boundary (pretty much by definition). Which all adds up to the TOTAL radiation coming in through your boundary going right back out again. There is no need to account for the view factor in this direction because there is no net radiation absorbed. It all goes right back out. Net inwelling energy through your boundary is zero.
No, Jane tried to use an equation that only calculates radiative "power out" when Jane needs to use an equation for heat transfer that calculates radiative "power out minus power in".
I almost started to argue with you again, but I have learned that it won't do any good. You'll still keep insisting that this violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is really how it's done. Sigh.
I don't think you really believe that for a second, if you're really the physicist you claim to be. The very simple textbook math has proved it wrong. I mean, didn't it send up a red flag when you took your answer and fed it back into standard heat transfer equations and it didn't balance? Oh, that's right... you didn't. But I did.
But that's just a statement of fact. I'm not arguing with you now and I'm not going to again. You're either a fool or a liar, and I do not care which. I have already proved it and I intend to publish that for the world to see. Along with textbook explanations and diagrams showing exactly where and how you went wrong.
I suppose since compost is later turned into fertilizer, composting is a bit less truly wasteful than throwing uneaten food into the "regular" trash, but I doubt that distinction is meaningful since in either case the food is no longer edible.
The only "meaning" it has is to their particular recycling and waste disposal programs. As you say, this is not about waste at all. It is only about where to put different kinds of trash.
It would be very similar to an ordinance that fines people for putting glass in the aluminum recycle bin.
<br> or <br
To make a single line break. Double it for 2 (paragraph).
Also see down below your text entry window for "Allowed HTML". b in brackets is bold, i in brackets is italics, etc. You must use opening and closing brackets around your text. E.g.,
<i>This would be italics.</i>
I used trickery to do that though. The brackets don't show up in the final text. Try it in a reply and use the "preview" button.