Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 506

by Jane Q. Public (#47790433) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report
Over a period of MORE THAN TWO YEARS, I have repeatedly tried to engage you in a thorough analysis of this experiment. EVERY TIME, you have done (usually incorrectly) a partial analysis, then declared the subject proved. But it never was. When pressed, you resorted to the same kind of bullshit you have pulled here, with ad-hominem, not-sequiturs, and straw-men. NEVER daring to face the full problem in real detail.

Because you KNOW Latour was correct. And it isn't just him. TEXTBOOKS about practical applications of thermodynamics say so.

You have NEVER, ONCE, tackled the problem head-on. Always a little twist here, a little change there, let's ignore areal exposure to the ambient radiation, ad nauseum. Always weaseling sideways, never quite taking on the task of REFUTING LATOUR, even though that's what you claimed to be doing, with all your misdirection.

Well, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, even though I honestly don't believe you deserve it. I am willing to concede that you really are a Kool-Aid drinker, and can't accept that the dogma isn't what you thought it was. That's preferable to believing that you're simply a malicious lying sonofabitch.

I am fucking well done here.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 506

by Jane Q. Public (#47790395) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report
I'm repeating that, with the quotations done properly, so I can save it for posterity.

No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F.

Haha. Here are your words.

At equilibrium, the enclosing shell radiates the same power out as the heated plate did before it was enclosed. But its area is 1.0025 times larger, so its outer temperature is 149.6F (338.5K) instead of 150.0F (338.7K).

A_h*T_h^4 = A_c2*T_c2^4 (Eq. 3)

For the moment, let's pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F (338.5K). Energy conservation at equilibrium just inside the enclosing shell shows [dumbscientist.com] that the heated sphere will warm to an equilibrium temperature of 233.8F (385.3K)

But its inner temperature ISN'T 149.6F, because it's being heated from the inside, not the outside. You calculate a temperature due to heating on the inside, with its area, then account for a reduced temperature on the outside due to increased area, then try to turn around and say the temperature on the inside is the same as the outside.

I'm not changing a thing. This is the same criticism I gave before (just in more detail). And you're STILL full of shit, you pretender. This is the most ludicrous thing I've heard coming from someone who claims to be a real scientist in years.

I've heard some "doozies", as they say, but it's doubly hilarious that I've pointed this out to you three times, and here you are still trying to defend it, rather than simply saying "Oops, I messed up."

It is A WASTE OF MY TIME to argue with you. You don't learn. I won't do it any more. And I'm going to give a copy of this to my grandchildren.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 506

by Jane Q. Public (#47790371) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F.

Haha. Here are your words.

At equilibrium, the enclosing shell radiates the same power out as the heated plate did before it was enclosed. But its area is 1.0025 times larger, so its outer temperature is 149.6F (338.5K) instead of 150.0F (338.7K).

A_h*T_h^4 = A_c2*T_c2^4 (Eq. 3)

For the moment, let's pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F (338.5K). Energy conservation at equilibrium just inside the enclosing shell shows [dumbscientist.com] that the heated sphere will warm to an equilibrium temperature of 233.8F (385.3K)

But its inner temperature ISN'T 149.6F, because it's being heated from the inside, not the outside. You calculate a temperature due to heating on the inside, with its area, then account for a reduced temperature on the outside due to increased area, then try to turn around and say the temperature on the inside is the same as the outside.

I'm not changing a thing. This is the same criticism I gave before (just in more detail). And you're STILL full of shit, you pretender.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 506

by Jane Q. Public (#47790329) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report
Oh, Jesus Christ. I actually started to have a serious discussion with you, then you had to obfuscate it and throw n all this other bullshit.

Every goddamned time. I thought we'd actually settle this scientifically, once and for all, but I see that you were never really interested in that anyway. I think other readers (which there WILL be) will conclude the same.

Really sorry if you're dying, but if so (I didn't believe it for a moment) you can go knowing that you abdicated on a chance to prove to the world that you can solve "civilization-paralyzing misinformation".

And I will know that you went exactly as you (from what you have shown me, anyway) deserve: unknown and deservedly so.

I offered to work through this with you reasonably, from start to finish. Even after you have repeatedly demonstrated that I have to reasonable obligation to you, to do so. You have refused.

End of discussion. End of ALL discussions with you, as far as I am concerned. Given that I have often offered to discuss this openly with you, and you have continually refused, then the matter is done. You lose by default because you refuse to lose like a man.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 506

by Jane Q. Public (#47790231) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report
Spencer's INITIAL description of his thought experiment. As I have told you several time. This first, then more if you want to get into it. I will not discuss this with you in the other order, AS I HAVE TOLD YOU. Because until you get that right, you're not going to get the other one right. If you continue to argue the other case first, then we are done, and I will write you off as hopeless.

Again, as long as the enclosing shell is nearly the same size as the heated plate, those areas are nearly irrelevant. And because it's a simpler problem (like a tricycle) one should master it before trying to ride a bicycle with complicated view factors. I already specified my areas. Again, neglecting area ratios predicts that the heated plate warms from 150F to 235F after it's enclosed. Accounting for area ratios similar to Earth's predicts that the heated plate warms from 150F to 233.8F.

No "enclosing shell". Two parallel plates. The original thought experiment is two parallel plates (we can make them of equal volume and dimensions just to simplify, but it's not necessary). I repeat: we briefly discussed "even if it were enclosing" but that's a complication of the original, and we'll solve the original first.

What the fuck am I doing? I actually started to solve this for you, after telling you I wouldn't. It must be very late on a Friday night.

Also, I don't think we're assuming black bodies. The best we can realistically do is grey bodies that absorb in all the relevant frequencies under discussion.

What the hell. Anything is better than your "thermal superconductors" that you then claim are different temperatures on different sides. Do you remember that is the second time you tried to pull that? I bet not.

Comment: Re:Different era (Score 1) 179

Currently with inflation at 1.5 - 2, the budget should be balanced and taxes moderate.

If you really believe inflation has been at 1.5-2%, you're either a complete loon, or you haven't tried to buy a house lately, or you've totally swallowed the government Kool-Aid.

OR, more likely, you've just been letting the wife buy the groceries and not listen to her complaints about the prices.

For fuck's sake, man, if you knew how CPI was calculated you'd never listen to that BS.

Comment: Re:Ocean heat content is rising - Levitus 2012 (Score 1) 506

by Jane Q. Public (#47790101) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report
Let's be clear:

You have made it abundantly clear that your interest here is to try to make me look bad. You can pretend you are having an "argument" all you like, but an objective observer can (has, actually) easily see that it is not so.

I have no reason to participate in your game and give you the satisfaction, regardless of the fact that (past evidence shows, and that's another truth) you would lose anyway. I have better things to do with my time.

To put it another way: this isn't worth my time. I will not respond further.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 506

by Jane Q. Public (#47787039) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report
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.

Comment: Re:Ocean heat content is rising - Levitus 2012 (Score 1) 506

by Jane Q. Public (#47786981) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

Certainly not in the scientific literature.

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.

Comment: Re:*drool* (Score 1) 146

Speed brings nothing to table in personal computing anymore (outside of gaming and i'm not and have been a gamer).

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.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 506

by Jane Q. Public (#47786327) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report
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:

Radiation is proportional to T**4, so the magnitude of actual transfer is only related to T(h)**4 - T(c)**4 because hot objects absorb radiation from cooler objects. Thatâ(TM)s consistent with the second law because hot objects radiate more power to cold objects than vice versa.

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:

Nonsense. Start with conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium: power in = power out.

The plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. The cold walls at 0ÂF (T(c) = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150ÂF (T(h) = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m**2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigmaT(c)**4 = sigmaT(h)**4

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.

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Working...