Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 296

I'm refuting his whole point:

"... in Spencer's thought experiment, the passive body that is inserted into the system cannot make the source warmer than it already is. That is Latour's whole point. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-02-13]

The first step to understanding this thought experiment is determining the constant electrical power needed to keep the heated plate at 150F before the cool plate is added. Since you've done your due diligence, what electrical power did your research reveal?

Comment: Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 296

His actual argument is that "k is the fraction of re-radiation from the second bar absorbed by the first hotter bar... k must be identically zero, so no cold back-radiation is absorbed and T remains 150. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, QED."

Again, he's completely wrong. The hotter bar absorbs cold back-radiation, and T does not remain 150F. That's why I refuted Dr. Latour by showing that a completely enclosed heated plate reaches an equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K), which is less than the infinite temperature he claimed.

Maybe it would help if we checked my calculations step by step. 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 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

(Eq. 1 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)

Yes/No: can we agree that Eq. 1 is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law and correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?

If yes, the next step is to solve Eq. 1 for the constant electrical input using a calculator or the Sage worksheet I provided.

If no, could you please write down the equation you think correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?

Comment: Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 296

Maybe it would help if we checked my calculations step by step. 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 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

(Eq. 1 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)

Yes/No: can we agree that Eq. 1 is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law and correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?

If yes, the next step is to solve Eq. 1 for the constant electrical input using a calculator or the Sage worksheet I provided.

If no, could you please write down the equation you think correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?

Comment: Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 296

Once again, if Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa.

Again, he must have forgotten this nebulous correction which you still haven't linked. I linked to an archive of his blog post that I made yesterday, but here's another archive I just made showing that his blog post is still live today and still contains nonsense like this: "k is the fraction of re-radiation from the second bar absorbed by the first hotter bar... k must be identically zero, so no cold back-radiation is absorbed and T remains 150. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, QED."

He's completely wrong. The hotter bar absorbs cold back-radiation, and T does not remain 150F. That's why I refuted Dr. Latour by showing that a completely enclosed heated plate reaches an equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K), which is less than the infinite temperature he claimed.

Apparently unlike you, sir, I have a basic understanding of math and physics. Please explain to us all where the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law is in error. I am sure we would all love to know. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-20]

... just what part of the S-B law do you find controversial? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-29]

Again, the greenhouse effect is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law. As I've explained: greenhouse gases re-emit some of [the upwelling long-wave IR], and it bounces around the troposphere until it gets to a height known as the "effective radiating level". Above this height (roughly 7km), there aren’t enough greenhouse gases to keep "most" of the IR from escaping to space altogether. This effective radiating level controls the outflow of heat from the Earth. Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that power radiated is proportional to temperature^4, and temperature decreases with height in the troposphere. Adding greenhouse gases raises the height of this effective radiating level, where it is cooler, which therefore decreases the outflow of heat from the Earth. This is the greenhouse effect, and it isn’t saturated because the effective radiating level can just keep getting higher (e.g. Venus).

Andrew Dessler also explains how the greenhouse effect depends on the Stefan-Boltzmann law. He even explains that an isothermal atmosphere wouldn't have a greenhouse effect: the Slayers' holy grail! Ironically, the greenhouse effect disappears if the upper troposphere isn't colder than the surface. The cold upper troposphere isn't a problem for the greenhouse effect. It's a fundamental requirement, along with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 333

As a Hydra, I scoff at mortal concepts like flattery. I also seem to have grown a sixth head judging by Jane's claim that I quoted myself complimenting myself. If Jane's referring to these compliments then my sixth Hydra head also has a real name which is different than mine. We Hydras are powerful and tricksy, and certainly not paranoid delusions. Nope.

Comment: Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 296

... You made the (quite incorrect) claim that Latour wasn't accounting for the fact that the subject at hand is net heat transfer. But that claim is simply incorrect. ... [Jane Q. Public]

Once again, if Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa.

... You took a badly-worded sentence or two and jumped on them as though Latour made a mistake. But his only mistake was wording a couple of sentences badly. He does in fact NOT suggest that warmer objects absorb no radiation, and he has written as much many times. ... You have refuted NOTHING but a couple of unfortunately-worded sentences, which Latour himself publicly corrected shortly after that post appeared. ... [Jane Q. Public]

He must have forgotten this nebulous unlinked correction because his blog post is still live and still contains all these badly worded sentences:

"... the absorption rate of real bodies depends on whether the absorber T (radiating or not), is less than the intercepted radiation T, or not. If the receiver T > intercepted T, no absorption occurs; if the receiver T < intercepted T the absorption rate may be as great as proportional to (T intercepted – T absorber), depending on the amounts reflected, transmitted or scattered. What actually happens is the chiller radiates to the hot plate, but the plate cannot absorb any of it because it is too cold. The hot plate reflects, transmits or scatters colder radiation, just like my roof does for cold radio waves. ... Energy from colder cannot heat hotter further because the second law of thermodynamics says so, because nature says so; always and everywhere. ... Conclusion, the hot plate remains at 150. All physics I know supports it; no physics offered refutes it. Spencer mistakenly assumed the 150 plate absorbs incident 100 radiation ... The generalized claim that a cooler object placed near a warmer object cannot result in a rise in temperature of the warmer object stands. ..."

In fact, he did more than suggest that warmer objects absorb no radiation: "k is the fraction of re-radiation from the second bar absorbed by the first hotter bar... k must be identically zero, so no cold back-radiation is absorbed and T remains 150. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, QED."

That's why I refuted Dr. Latour by showing that a completely enclosed heated plate reaches an equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K), which is less than infinity.

Explain to us what Venus vs. Mercury have to do with Pierre Latour's thermodynamic argument in regard to greenhouse warming? [Jane Q. Public]

Again, if Dr. Latour and the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Hint: the Slayers are wrong. Venus is hotter than Mercury because of the greenhouse effect.

... I have no desire (or any motivation, for that matter) to engage you in some ridiculous argument about whether Venus is proof of "greenhouse warming", as compared to Mercury or the Earth. There are many reasons why even if it were true, it is hardly relevant: Mercury has an extremely long day, almost no atmosphere, and a very eccentric orbit. Venus has a surface atmospheric pressure 92 times (give or take) Earth's, it's atmosphere is MOSTLY CO2 (around 96% or so), versus Earth's 0.04% or less, again give or take a bit. Not to mention the vast clouds of sulfuric acid. You seem to want to ignore all these other variables and argue about just CO2, when the degree to which CO2 in particular affects Venus' surface temperature is speculative, to say the least. ... [Jane Q. Public]

No, I didn't ignore those variables. In fact, I pointed out differences that should make Venus cooler than Mercury in the absence of Venus's greenhouse effect. For instance:

  • I compared Mercury's daytime surface temperature to Venus's nighttime surface temperature because Venus's long night should be cooler than Mercury's long day.
  • I mentioned Venus's high albedo which is due to its vast clouds of sulfuric acid, and mentioned that this should keep Venus cooler than dark Mercury by reflecting more sunlight.
  • I mentioned that Venus is farther from the Sun than Mercury even when Mercury is at aphelion, which should make Venus cooler than Mercury.
  • I pointed out that long-term equilibrium surface temperature is determined by conservation of energy, not the ideal gas law. So pressure only affects surface temperature by enhancing the greenhouse effect if and only if GHG's are present.

I've also explained that a planet with no atmosphere is a simple case where the effective radiating level is at the surface, so the equilibrium surface temperature can be determined using the planet’s albedo and distance from the Sun. The greenhouse effect modifies this simple case, which is why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

After I explained that Venus is hot because of its greenhouse effect, you replied by quoting a paper saying "Such an amount of CO2 causes greenhouse warming by 500 K there. On the other hand, the mere 0.006 bars of CO2 on Mars cause warming by 5.5K."

How do Slayers explain 500K of greenhouse warming on Venus, other than basketball player gloves and gray Oreos?

You also linked a crackpot website claiming that on Venus "the solar energy simply does not reach the surface."

I've explained that Venera 9 landed on the surface of Venus and found "surface light levels comparable to those at Earth mid-latitudes on a cloudy summer day." Check out the panorama.

Again, if the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Instead of regurgitating bad arguments you find in 30 seconds and which you don't even read carefully, please read carefully before regurgitating even more misinformation for me to debunk.

Comment: Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 296

... Explain to us what Venus vs. Mercury have to do with Pierre Latour's thermodynamic argument in regard to greenhouse warming? ... [Jane Q. Public]

Again, if the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Instead of regurgitating bad arguments you find in 30 seconds and which you don't even read carefully, please read carefully before regurgitating even more misinformation for me to debunk.

... you have failed for 2 years to refute Latour. ... You know you can't refute Latour...

I refuted Dr. Latour's claim that mainstream physics predicts infinite warming, and explained how the greenhouse effect is based on the Stefan Boltzmann law and requires a cold upper troposphere. Again, a real skeptic would be checking my calculation that a completely enclosed heated plate would reach an equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K).

Comment: Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 296

... the part I was referencing was the part about Venus. ... I knew next to nothing about the subject. ... [Jane Q. Public]

Do you see how crackpot websites which make "ridiculous" claims that you might have made when you "knew next to nothing about the subject" might not be the best source of science education?

... I just did you a favor and looked up something you asked for on Google. His arguments are not my own and I did not even read them carefully. I merely looked them up for you because you seemed to wanted to argue about yet another straw-man that had next to nothing to do with anything I had said. ... [Jane Q. Public]

Venus vs. Mercury has everything to do with the Slayer nonsense you're spreading. You're just regurgitating even more misinformation that I have to debunk. That's the exact opposite of a favor! It's the same absurd behavior I've repeatedly asked you to stop.

Again, thanks for finally being honest. You’re not interested in valid science, just something you can use to argue, even if it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. You’ve used this "principle of superficiality" to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation which seems plausible at first glance to non-scientists, but doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. In fact, I said as much last year:

"... each contrarian is more effective at superficial "science communication" than the average scientist. ... Once you get a contrarian started, a stream of regurgitated-but-superficially-plausible nonsense spews forth. Just consider Jane Q. Public. ..."

...I was not present... [Jane Q. Public]

Actually, you did respond. Repeatedly. Sure you weren't present?

Comment: Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 296

You cited a non-peer-reviewed crackpot website which claims:

"...the fact that the CO2 increase is linear, while at the same time the amount of CO2 released by humans has grown exponentially, is the primary proof that humans are NOT responsible for the change in CO2 concentration..." [Robert Clemenzi]

I tried to tell you that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration. You even seemed to agree, calling Clemenzi's claim "ridiculous".

Before I waste time debunking the rest of that nonsense you cited, I'm wondering if you're regressing again. Hopefully I don't have to prove we're responsible for the CO2 rise again. If you still consider it "ridiculous" to deny that basic fact, do you see how Clemenzi might not be the best source of science education?

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...