Slashdot Mirror

We've determined equilibrium temperatures in a simple example, so let's solve a more general example.

Jane's concerned that the enclosing plate is bigger than the heated plate. But Earth's mean radius is 6371 km, and the effective radiating level is ~7 km higher, so these surface areas are only ~0.2% different. Of course, in a thought experiment this difference can be made arbitrarily smaller. Despite Jane's protests, this doesn't change the fact that enclosing the heated plate makes it warmer.

More importantly, I treated the plates as blackbodies where absorptivity alpha = 1 and emissivity epsilon = 1. This is a reasonable approximation for plates made of carbon nanotube arrays (PDF) which have alpha = ~0.99955. But more conventional plates have alpha and epsilon considerably less than 1.

The next step is to treat the plates as graybodies where absorptivity and emissivity are independent of wavelength, so they appear gray. Kirchoff's Law states that absorptivity = emissivity for graybodies.

MIT calculates heat transfer between graybody plates using an infinite sum of emission, reflection and absorption. Using my variable names, their final expression is:

net heat flow = sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1) (Eq. 2)

(Again, Eq. 2 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)

At equilibrium, net heat flow equals the electrical input. Note that MIT's Eq. 2 reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies where epsilon_h = epsilon_c = 1.

Suppose the plates and chamber walls are made of oxidized aluminum with emissivity = 0.11. In this case, Sage solves Eq. 2 for a constant electric input of 29.6 W/m^2, which is lower than before because aluminum doesn't radiate as well as a blackbody.

Using Eq. 2 and the same reasoning as before, fully enclosing the heated plate warms it to the same equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K). Fully exposing the plate to the cosmic microwave background radiation cools it to 13F (263K), which is lower than before because the CMBR is a blackbody and aluminum chamber walls aren't.

So even for graybody plates, MIT's mainstream physics refutes Dr. Latour's nonsensical claim that the enclosed heated plate remains at 150F. They also use this equation to explain how thermos bottles insulate drinks, and describe the same radiation shields used since at least

We've determined equilibrium temperatures in a simple example, so let's solve a more general example.

Jane's concerned that the enclosing plate is bigger than the heated plate. But Earth's mean radius is 6371 km, and the effective radiating level is ~7 km higher, so these surface areas are only ~0.2% different. Of course, in a thought experiment this difference can be made arbitrarily smaller. Despite Jane's protests, this doesn't change the fact that enclosing the heated plate makes it warmer.

More importantly, I treated the plates as blackbodies where absorptivity alpha = 1 and emissivity epsilon = 1. This is a reasonable approximation for plates made of carbon nanotube arrays (PDF) which have alpha = ~0.99955. But more conventional plates have alpha and epsilon considerably less than 1.

The next step is to treat the plates as graybodies where absorptivity and emissivity are independent of wavelength, so they appear gray. Kirchoff's Law states that absorptivity = emissivity for graybodies.

MIT calculates heat transfer between graybody plates using an infinite sum of emission, reflection and absorption. Using my variable names, their final expression is:

net heat flow = sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1) (Eq. 2)

(Again, Eq. 2 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)

At equilibrium, net heat flow equals the electrical input. Note that MIT's Eq. 2 reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies where epsilon_h = epsilon_c = 1.

Suppose the plates and chamber walls are made of oxidized aluminum with emissivity = 0.11. In this case, Sage solves Eq. 2 for a constant electric input of 29.6 W/m^2, which is lower than before because aluminum doesn't radiate as well as a blackbody.

Using Eq. 2 and the same reasoning as before, fully enclosing the heated plate warms it to the same equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K). Fully exposing the plate to the cosmic microwave background radiation cools it to 13F (263K), which is lower than before because the CMBR is a blackbody and aluminum chamber walls aren't.

So even for graybody plates, MIT's mainstream physics refutes Dr. Latour's nonsensical claim that the enclosed heated plate remains at 150F. They also use this equation to explain how thermos bottles insulate drinks, and describe the same radiation shields used since at least

We've determined equilibrium temperatures in a simple example, so let's solve a more general example.

Jane's concerned that the enclosing plate is bigger than the heated plate. But Earth's mean radius is 6371 km, and the effective radiating level is ~7 km higher, so these surface areas are only ~0.2% different. Of course, in a thought experiment this difference can be made arbitrarily smaller. Despite Jane's protests, this doesn't change the fact that enclosing the heated plate makes it warmer.

More importantly, I treated the plates as blackbodies where absorptivity alpha = 1 and emissivity epsilon = 1. This is a reasonable approximation for plates made of carbon nanotube arrays (PDF) which have alpha = ~0.99955. But more conventional plates have alpha and epsilon considerably less than 1.

The next step is to treat the plates as graybodies where absorptivity and emissivity are independent of wavelength, so they appear gray. Kirchoff's Law states that absorptivity = emissivity for graybodies.

MIT calculates heat transfer between graybody plates using an infinite sum of emission, reflection and absorption. Using my variable names, their final expression is:

net heat flow = sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1) (Eq. 2)

(Again, Eq. 2 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)

At equilibrium, net heat flow equals the electrical input. Note that MIT's Eq. 2 reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies where epsilon_h = epsilon_c = 1.

Suppose the plates and chamber walls are made of oxidized aluminum with emissivity = 0.11. In this case, Sage solves Eq. 2 for a constant electric input of 29.6 W/m^2, which is lower than before because aluminum doesn't radiate as well as a blackbody.

Using Eq. 2 and the same reasoning as before, fully enclosing the heated plate warms it to the same equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K). Fully exposing the plate to the cosmic microwave background radiation cools it to 13F (263K), which is lower than before because the CMBR is a blackbody and aluminum chamber walls aren't.

So even for graybody plates, MIT's mainstream physics refutes Dr. Latour's nonsensical claim that the enclosed heated plate remains at 150F. They also use this equation to explain how thermos bottles insulate drinks, and describe the same radiation shields used since at least

Dr. Latour's 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."

And within the last year you've claimed that:

"... 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]

Yes/No: do you claim the heated plate will remain at 150F after the second plate is added?

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.

Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. THAT ISN'T WHAT HE CLAIMED. Quite the contrary. He claimed that a completely enclosed plate DOES NOT reach infinite temperature, which of course agrees with observations. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-01]

Again, Dr. Latour claimed that mainstream physics, which includes absorption of cold back-radiation, "would constitute creation of energy, a violation of the first law of thermodynamics." You've even repeated his claim:

... the temperature would go up until it outshone the rest of the universe, or it would cool down to zero. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-12-24]

"I told you what I think happens to that 10 Joules. By the first law of thermodynamics it doesn't just disappear so what happens to it?"

Yes, I know you told me but that doesn't happen. It would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. ... The system would never reach equilibrium, but would continue warming to infinity (if such a thing as infinite temperature existed). It would soon destroy itself from all this extra energy that is coming from nowhere. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-02-17]

That's why I've repeatedly told you that:

"Dr. Latour was wrong to claim that mainstream physics predicts the heated plate warms infinitely."

"I refuted Dr. Latour's claim that mainstream physics predicts infinite warming..."

If you're retracting your claim that absorbing cold back-radiation (i.e. mainstream physics) would violate the first law and "continue warming to infinity" then that's great news!

Here's one way you are wrong. In any realistic system, the enclosing plate would be of larger dimensions than the internal source, however slightly. So while the total re-radiated energy might be the same, it is spread over a larger area, so the energy density (and therefore temperature) would be lower. How did you allow a layman to catch you in such an elementary error? Not that I had any obligation to do so. Your argument is with him, not me. Just consider it a free lesson in humility. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-01]

The key phrase is "however slightly" because that difference can be made arbitrarily small. Since the only objection you've raised is arbitrarily small, does that mean you now see that Dr. Latour is wrong to claim that the heated plate will stay at 150F after the second plate is added, because he wrongly claims that absorbing cold back-radiation would violate the first law?

If not, maybe it would help if we kept checking my calculations step by step. For the simplest case of blackbody plates with arbitrarily similar areas, this equation represents conservation of energy at equilibrium:

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

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.

Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. THAT ISN'T WHAT HE CLAIMED. Quite the contrary. He claimed that a completely enclosed plate DOES NOT reach infinite temperature, which of course agrees with observations. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-01]

Again, Dr. Latour claimed that mainstream physics, which includes absorption of cold back-radiation, "would constitute creation of energy, a violation of the first law of thermodynamics." You've even repeated his claim:

... the temperature would go up until it outshone the rest of the universe, or it would cool down to zero. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-12-24]

"I told you what I think happens to that 10 Joules. By the first law of thermodynamics it doesn't just disappear so what happens to it?"

Yes, I know you told me but that doesn't happen. It would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. ... The system would never reach equilibrium, but would continue warming to infinity (if such a thing as infinite temperature existed). It would soon destroy itself from all this extra energy that is coming from nowhere. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-02-17]

That's why I've repeatedly told you that:

"Dr. Latour was wrong to claim that mainstream physics predicts the heated plate warms infinitely."

"I refuted Dr. Latour's claim that mainstream physics predicts infinite warming..."

If you're retracting your claim that absorbing cold back-radiation (i.e. mainstream physics) would violate the first law and "continue warming to infinity" then that's great news!

Here's one way you are wrong. In any realistic system, the enclosing plate would be of larger dimensions than the internal source, however slightly. So while the total re-radiated energy might be the same, it is spread over a larger area, so the energy density (and therefore temperature) would be lower. How did you allow a layman to catch you in such an elementary error? Not that I had any obligation to do so. Your argument is with him, not me. Just consider it a free lesson in humility. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-01]

The key phrase is "however slightly" because that difference can be made arbitrarily small. Since the only objection you've raised is arbitrarily small, does that mean you now see that Dr. Latour is wrong to claim that the heated plate will stay at 150F after the second plate is added, because he wrongly claims that absorbing cold back-radiation would violate the first law?

If not, maybe it would help if we kept checking my calculations step by step. For the simplest case of blackbody plates with arbitrarily similar areas, this equation represents conservation of energy at equilibrium:

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

... 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 at

... 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 at

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?

... Since this person is not making any scientific argument anyway, but simply attempting ad-hominem, and saying "so-and-so is wrong" without ANY evidence (which is all he can do, because he doesn't have any), this was a completely pointless exercise on his part. He was simply making another attempt at dragging my persona through the mud. I can only conclude that was his only purpose, since he didn't make any actual, substantive arguments. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-25]

A real skeptic would be checking my calculations but Jane can't even acknowledge them. If the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Mercury's daytime surface temperature is 350C while Venus has a nighttime surface temperature of ~470C.

... despite the fact that Venus is 87% farther away from the Sun than Mercury, implying sunlight 3.5x weaker.

... and despite the fact that Mercury's albedo is ~0.1 and Venus's albedo is ~0.65.

... and despite the fact that a "night" on Venus lasts ~58 Earth days, during which the temperature barely changes from that at "high noon".

... Since all atmospheres must get colder with altitude as kinetic energy is transformed into potential energy in a planet’s gravitational field, the lower atmosphere must be warmer than upper atmosphere, even if there is no radiation involved. This follows from the perfect gas law, PV = nRT. ... [Dr. Latour, 2011-11-06]

Riiiight. That's why the stratosphere doesn't exist. I've explained that long-term equilibrium surface temperature is determined by conservation of energy, not the ideal gas law. (If scientists were wrong, basketball players would have to dribble with gloves because the pressurized ball would have to be very hot.)

Many Slayers blame equilibrium surface temperature on pressure, which I call the basketball player glove fantasy. None of the Slayers at WUWT would answer this question: would Venus have the same surface temperature if its atmosphere were pure nitrogen, which isn’t a greenhouse gas?

I've even seen a Slayer convince himself that all objects have the same albedo, which I call the gray Oreo fantasy.

Will Jane explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury using basketball player gloves, gray Oreos, or truly original groundbreaking science?

... Since this person is not making any scientific argument anyway, but simply attempting ad-hominem, and saying "so-and-so is wrong" without ANY evidence (which is all he can do, because he doesn't have any), this was a completely pointless exercise on his part. He was simply making another attempt at dragging my persona through the mud. I can only conclude that was his only purpose, since he didn't make any actual, substantive arguments. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-25]

A real skeptic would be checking my calculations but Jane can't even acknowledge them. If the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Mercury's daytime surface temperature is 350C while Venus has a nighttime surface temperature of ~470C.

... despite the fact that Venus is 87% farther away from the Sun than Mercury, implying sunlight 3.5x weaker.

... and despite the fact that Mercury's albedo is ~0.1 and Venus's albedo is ~0.65.

... and despite the fact that a "night" on Venus lasts ~58 Earth days, during which the temperature barely changes from that at "high noon".

... Since all atmospheres must get colder with altitude as kinetic energy is transformed into potential energy in a planet’s gravitational field, the lower atmosphere must be warmer than upper atmosphere, even if there is no radiation involved. This follows from the perfect gas law, PV = nRT. ... [Dr. Latour, 2011-11-06]

Riiiight. That's why the stratosphere doesn't exist. I've explained that long-term equilibrium surface temperature is determined by conservation of energy, not the ideal gas law. (If scientists were wrong, basketball players would have to dribble with gloves because the pressurized ball would have to be very hot.)

Many Slayers blame equilibrium surface temperature on pressure, which I call the basketball player glove fantasy. None of the Slayers at WUWT would answer this question: would Venus have the same surface temperature if its atmosphere were pure nitrogen, which isn’t a greenhouse gas?

I've even seen a Slayer convince himself that all objects have the same albedo, which I call the gray Oreo fantasy.

Will Jane explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury using basketball player gloves, gray Oreos, or truly original groundbreaking science?

... Since this person is not making any scientific argument anyway, but simply attempting ad-hominem, and saying "so-and-so is wrong" without ANY evidence (which is all he can do, because he doesn't have any), this was a completely pointless exercise on his part. He was simply making another attempt at dragging my persona through the mud. I can only conclude that was his only purpose, since he didn't make any actual, substantive arguments. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-25]

A real skeptic would be checking my calculations but Jane can't even acknowledge them. If the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Mercury's daytime surface temperature is 350C while Venus has a nighttime surface temperature of ~470C.

... despite the fact that Venus is 87% farther away from the Sun than Mercury, implying sunlight 3.5x weaker.

... and despite the fact that Mercury's albedo is ~0.1 and Venus's albedo is ~0.65.

... and despite the fact that a "night" on Venus lasts ~58 Earth days, during which the temperature barely changes from that at "high noon".

... Since all atmospheres must get colder with altitude as kinetic energy is transformed into potential energy in a planet’s gravitational field, the lower atmosphere must be warmer than upper atmosphere, even if there is no radiation involved. This follows from the perfect gas law, PV = nRT. ... [Dr. Latour, 2011-11-06]

Riiiight. That's why the stratosphere doesn't exist. I've explained that long-term equilibrium surface temperature is determined by conservation of energy, not the ideal gas law. (If scientists were wrong, basketball players would have to dribble with gloves because the pressurized ball would have to be very hot.)

Many Slayers blame equilibrium surface temperature on pressure, which I call the basketball player glove fantasy. None of the Slayers at WUWT would answer this question: would Venus have the same surface temperature if its atmosphere were pure nitrogen, which isn’t a greenhouse gas?

I've even seen a Slayer convince himself that all objects have the same albedo, which I call the gray Oreo fantasy.

Will Jane explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury using basketball player gloves, gray Oreos, or truly original groundbreaking science?

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... 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 ab

And I'll repeat the question I asked you years ago: why do you ASSUME that meant you? Why do you ASSUME I named that file myself? Why do you ASSUME it was even my file to begin with? [Jane Q. Public]

So you didn't name or even make the file you linked in a public comment at my website. You didn't name or even make the screenshot of our conversation, which you defended after quoting me saying that you made the screenshot. You didn't name the file "asshole-pseudo-scientist.png" and that doesn't refer to me, despite the fact that you've been calling me an asshole for years. And still are.

Again, you're being absurdly evasive, just like every time your misinformation is challenged. Except this time you're blatantly lying. Are you also deliberately lying when you spread all your civilization-paralyzing misinformation? If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

"A lying liar who has to keep lying to cover his previous lies. -- IndEx http://fb.me/2vQzP38Ln" [Joe Newby, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-10]

And I'll repeat the question I asked you years ago: why do you ASSUME that meant you? Why do you ASSUME I named that file myself? Why do you ASSUME it was even my file to begin with? [Jane Q. Public]

So you didn't name or even make the file you linked in a public comment at my website. You didn't name or even make the screenshot of our conversation, which you defended after quoting me saying that you made the screenshot. You didn't name the file "asshole-pseudo-scientist.png" and that doesn't refer to me, despite the fact that you've been calling me an asshole for years. And still are.

Again, you're being absurdly evasive, just like every time your misinformation is challenged. Except this time you're blatantly lying. Are you also deliberately lying when you spread all your civilization-paralyzing misinformation? If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

"A lying liar who has to keep lying to cover his previous lies. -- IndEx http://fb.me/2vQzP38Ln" [Joe Newby, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-10]

Someone (myself or a friend or even just someone I know) posted a file for me that I later linked to for YOUR viewing (I remember the context of the circumstances and you were being your usual [my opinion] asshole self). Who that was is ambiguous. Possibly I am a friend of this person, which is WHY I asked him to post the file.

Lonny Eachus isn't ambiguous.

The next obvious google search showed that in 2009 Jane Q. Public asked about the "money siphon system" scam a few hours before Lonny Eachus bought into it. Those are the only posts Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus left on that forum. They both disappeared after those posts, presumably by ambiguous coincidence.

Someone (myself or a friend or even just someone I know) posted a file for me that I later linked to for YOUR viewing (I remember the context of the circumstances and you were being your usual [my opinion] asshole self). Who that was is ambiguous. Possibly I am a friend of this person, which is WHY I asked him to post the file.

Lonny Eachus isn't ambiguous.

The next obvious google search showed that in 2009 Jane Q. Public asked about the "money siphon system" scam a few hours before Lonny Eachus bought into it. Those are the only posts Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus left on that forum. They both disappeared after those posts, presumably by ambiguous coincidence.

Someone (myself or a friend or even just someone I know) posted a file for me that I later linked to for YOUR viewing (I remember the context of the circumstances and you were being your usual [my opinion] asshole self). Who that was is ambiguous. Possibly I am a friend of this person, which is WHY I asked him to post the file.

Lonny Eachus isn't ambiguous.

The next obvious google search showed that in 2009 Jane Q. Public asked about the "money siphon system" scam a few hours before Lonny Eachus bought into it. Those are the only posts Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus left on that forum. They both disappeared after those posts, presumably by ambiguous coincidence.

Someone (myself or a friend or even just someone I know) posted a file for me that I later linked to for YOUR viewing (I remember the context of the circumstances and you were being your usual [my opinion] asshole self). Who that was is ambiguous. Possibly I am a friend of this person, which is WHY I asked him to post the file.

Lonny Eachus isn't ambiguous.

The next obvious google search showed that in 2009 Jane Q. Public asked about the "money siphon system" scam a few hours before Lonny Eachus bought into it. Those are the only posts Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus left on that forum. They both disappeared after those posts, presumably by ambiguous coincidence.

No, the links I've provided link to the things I assert. Again, in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

Again, whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. You're behaving in exactly the same way. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous [Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]

"A lying liar who has to keep lying to cover his previous lies. -- IndEx http://fb.me/2vQzP38Ln" [Joe Newby, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-10]

"And lying about it. I am not big on attempts to re-write history. That in itself is evil." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-01]

No, the links I've provided link to the things I assert. Again, in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

Again, whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. You're behaving in exactly the same way. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous [Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]

"A lying liar who has to keep lying to cover his previous lies. -- IndEx http://fb.me/2vQzP38Ln" [Joe Newby, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-10]

"And lying about it. I am not big on attempts to re-write history. That in itself is evil." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-01]

No, the links I've provided link to the things I assert. Again, in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

Again, whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. You're behaving in exactly the same way. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous [Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]

"A lying liar who has to keep lying to cover his previous lies. -- IndEx http://fb.me/2vQzP38Ln" [Joe Newby, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-10]

"And lying about it. I am not big on attempts to re-write history. That in itself is evil." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-01]

No, the links I've provided link to the things I assert. Again, in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

Again, whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. You're behaving in exactly the same way. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous [Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]

"A lying liar who has to keep lying to cover his previous lies. -- IndEx http://fb.me/2vQzP38Ln" [Joe Newby, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-10]

"And lying about it. I am not big on attempts to re-write history. That in itself is evil." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-01]

You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]

Ocean acidification is independent of climate sensitivity, and it's another reason to be concerned about the unprecedented rapidity of our CO2 emissions.

I would also like to point out again that even if acidification is happening, the RESULTS of that acidification are probably less than alarmists have claimed. Example (2010 article): http://www.rationaloptimist.co... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-10]

Lonny Eachus also linked to that misinformation from Matt Ridley, a journalist with a long history of distorting climate science.

In contrast, I quoted from Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF), Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF), and Ken Caldeira’s 2012 AGU lecture. That last link was from my videos section which also includes:

• Andrew Dickson gave a technical 2009 presentation called “Acidic Oceans: Why Should We Care?”
• A series of panels at the 2011 AGU discussed declining reef health and tipping points.

I'm not a chemist or a marine biologist/ecologist, so I read peer-reviewed papers and go to conferences like the AGU to watch lectures by scientists who do specialize and publish in those fields. For instance, consider that 2011 AGU panel on declining reef health. Nina Keul observed one species of foramanifera Glas et al. 2012 (PDF) growing faster as carbonate ion concentration decreases (which happens when CO2 increases). She provided context by noting that this is one species from one experiment, noting that this is like looking at one puzzle piece of a big puzzle.

Then Adina Paytan provides further context by noting that most species aren't like this. She shows Fig. 2 from Crook et al. 2012 (PDF) which shows that only ~3 out of 9 species of coral are present in locations with naturally low pH and notes that "Because these three species are rarely major contributors to Caribbean reef framework, these data may indicate that today’s more complex frame-building species may be replaced by smaller, possibly patchy, colonies of only a few species along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef."

Finally, Robert Ridin