Slashdot Mirror
Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report
New submitter SomeoneFromBelgium (3420851) writes According to Bloomberg a leaked climate report from the IPPC speaks of "Irreversible Damage." The warnings in the report are, as such, not new but the tone of voice is more urgent and more direct than ever. It states among other things that global warming already is affecting "all continents and across the oceans," and that "risks from mitigation can be substantial, but they do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation action."
Climate has always changed, the concept of "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it. But lets pretend that they're the same thing, because it will gather more clicks.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Alright morons, show us how stupid you are and demonstrate your ignorance of basic scientific principals!
More urgent and direct than ever? That's good because they were so calm about it up to now.
Are you telling me that spewing into the atmosphere millions of years of accumulated sunlight and cutting down most of the natural CO2 scrubers (trees) of the world will have negative effects? Nah! Imposible!
change your name to Kamin and learn to play the flute.
We'll never do anything about climate change as long as businesses can dictate law, control the EPA, and guide lawmaking through lobbyists. The Supreme Court has literally ensured this.
I can't stand the idea that multi-billion corporations can't afford to spend 1/8th of their profit, if even that much, to operate in a more environmentally friendly manner.
Gotta hoard and accumulate money at all costs, no matter what happens.
From the article:
The UN panel since September has published three separate reports into the physical science of global warming, its impacts, and ways to fight it. The study leaked yesterday, called the “Synthesis Report” intends to pick out the most important findings and present them in a way that lawmakers can easily understand. (Emphasis mine)
Why do I have a feeling the report to the politicians will have to read a lot like the Simple English Wikipedia, to the point where it might not be a bad idea to get the writers for that on it.
"Global warming is a bad thing that causes lots of problems. Burning stuff causes global warming. If you keep burning stuff, you will have a bad problem."
Shel Silverstein
The 'impossible' is just something that hasn't been done yet.
“Without additional mitigation, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally,” the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in the draft.
ready guys? 1....2...3.... get him!!!
I just hope global warming increases to the point where it can self-pop the popcorn I like to eat when these histrionic sorts of things come out. All the sound and fury, so little actually accomplished! Whee!
It's also likely that global warming might deliver pre-melted butter for the popcorn. Damn, what's wrong with this again?
-Styopa
Don't worry. Seriously, some very rich people who made a fortune selling gas and coal have assured us that these climate change alarmists are just a bunch of melodramatic liars. There's nothing to worry about.
You will be remembered for your contributions on this issue, I'm sure. What I'm not sure about is whether you'll like how you're remembered.
Kythe
MDSOLAR why do you post links from that biased site every time climate comes up? Do you work for them? Post from respectable sources.
Barack Obama healed the earth with his inaugural address in 2008!
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
At least get the acronym for the name of the organization predicting doom right. And...there's no hurry for action. The climate is currently taking a 'hiatus' from warming due to the alleged storage of heat in the deep ocean. Forecasts for the upcoming winter are...cold.
We can make it rain, actually. It's called cloud seeding.
Do you really have so little concept as to the scale of human damage? A single average-sized car puts out 4.75 metric TONS of carbon every year (and about 2-3 years worth during its construction and a little bit more during its destruction.) At last check there were more cars in the use being operated than there are drivers... and that's just one country... whilst this amount is being dwarfed by carbon emissions tied up in industrial agriculture (local/natural agriculture trends toward carbon neutral to negative, but can only sustain modest populations the likes of which we haven't seen on earth for over a century.) The fact that YOUR individual contribution to the damage done is a drop in the bucket does nothing to deny the fact that you are not the only person on earth... it's a tiny place in the grand scheme of things and we've overrun the place and are spending carbon, water, and oxygen like there's no tomorrow... which is no longer a mathematically implausible scenario as a result. The world's WORST extinction level event was also a climate change one, and we've reach the same levels at 40000x the speed... if life couldn't cope at that snail's pace (~1000000 years of constant hawaii-style volcanic carbon farting, killing off some 95% of all life) why do you think it (or we) will fare any better doing the equivalent of flying this jet into a brick wall?
I'm far from an expert but the drought conditions out west are certainly telling something.
MDSOLAR why do you post links from that biased site every time climate comes up? Do you work for them? Post from respectable sources.
Wikipedia says it will be 75 degrees (F) and sunny for the rest of time! [citation needed]
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
typos notwithstanding
It's funny how delusional people like frikken lazers think that pointing out that he's in Republican alternate reality means that nuts are censoring his message. These AGW deniers are just as cracked as evolution deniers, and are often the same people. I hope he gets some professional help.
But I absolutely assure you it is possible to undue all damage- if we are willing to pay a ridiculous amount of money to do it.
Now, biological extinctions may be unpreventable, but we can always turn the clock back on climate change.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
And in all honesty, what the human race should focus on right now is conserving as much life as possible.
In a living state that is. The seed and DNA systems are good and should still keep going, but they won't be useful for us over the next century when half the human race ends up dying off due to massive eco-collapse.
We are still a long ways off of recreating these creatures from 3D printing machines, or even implantation. (although I would certainly hope to be proven wrong by the mammoth revival project)
What we need to do is make smarter, compact arcologies dotted all around the world. Preferably near renewable power sources like waterfalls that we know 100% will not fail even if the sun grew 5%.
Better yet, make artificial water falls by planting more trees on hills. Trees are hugely important for generating water from the air. You could try DIY it, which we can do, but scaling it up will still have that initial cost. These trees would be essentially free and will be a reasonable size by the time anything might be bad.
People are going to have to give up some spacial freedoms for the sake of the human race. All these big houses, huge empty gardens, all have to go.
You don't and rarely do use them. Smaller efficient homes are easier to heat and manage, and are generally more cosy anyway.
Large shared gardens and farms. And more to the point, vertical gardens and farms. These require special attention to weight distribution and engineering, but they can be done very easily even at a consumer level. (you can make pretty simple aquaponics farms from wood and metal containers)
Buildings and offices that have dual uses. Say for example a clothes store in the morning, then it becomes a bar at night. I've rarely seen businesses that operate like this. Shame, they have a huge building sitting there doing nothing for several hours. Waste if you ask me. They could be making loads of money if they made dual purpose.
So so many more things similar to this.
Our planet is failing. And this matters not of your opinions on it, how much crap you have been fed from the media, it is a plain and simple fact: the climate is changing at a disastrous level.
We haven't experienced this since the last ice age. Not even that volcano that caused a several season winter was that bad.
Large numbers of things will die unless we preserve them in artificial environments.
Places like the Eden Project are incredibly successful and the right direction for such preservation.
And the construction itself is also very well done, and simple as well. Hexagonal building will surely become more important in the years to come, it is strong and easy to construct. (it also uses pentagons too, but hexagons are just that bit better)
I quite liked the idea of that Hexagonal Building that was used for a possible Mars habitat. The layout I disagreed with a little, the bedroom and bathroom should be switched to be beside the other bedroom, but the idea is sound and very workable. 3D printable as well.
Will it happen? Will it fuck. We care more about stupid religious wars, obsessively collecting pointless data and stupid resource wars that are only going to get worse to the point where we will likely end up wiping ourselves off the planet, along with billions of other lifeforms.
Literally if every country sat down right now and said "no, let's fix this shit", it could work.
Look at all the spending you see on things like the US Military. Imagine if that was put in to preserving our future. There would even be a problem any more.
Shits wasteful and pointless. And the results barely even last a decade before there is more conflict.
Only regular people will be able to get this done. Depending on governments is pointless now. They have all failed us. And trying to get them evicted from their positions of power will only cause more conflict.
Given my country is likely going to be thrown in to a awful mess within the next week due to a silly independence attempt (which I agree with on some levels, but it is still too early to decide), I'm already making plans to fix the mess that the possible government will leave us in.
Do these studies properly account for ALL animal flatulence? Including whales? I didn't think so.
You sound as far gone as Glenn Beck. You're completely lost if you actually believe the wingnut delusion that you've posted.
Please characterize the bias.
I won't reject your claims of bias out of hand(and benefit of the doubt is pretty much entirely what deniers rely on for everything so my patience is a little limited.
This isn't "Watts up with that" where there's a financial payment for having the right opinions. These are scientists with appropriate credentials discussing common misinformation.
If there is a bias, there must A: be an undisclosed or clearly concerning motivation or B: some kind of oversight problems.
I don't mind discussing bias, but I want it to be more than "It calls my out my flawed opinions".
RealClimate is an expert site. That is where you will find reliable information.
.. is that organisation similar to the IPCC? Insert snark about editors here.
Because they would never want the media to get a hold of this document...
I mean, if the sky is falling, why bother making our last days uncomfortable by trying to change anything, might as well just keep it up.
I have environmental institutions just as much as I hate deniers. Look, if you are going to present the argument that we're totally and completely fucked, why wouldn't the rational response be "Let's ignore it because whether or not they're right, there's no difference".
Looks like Queen Titania or someone else is making a play for power, Someone call Harry before the ebola viruses get too happy.
Really? http://www.engineering.com/Ele...
A-la gun control, then we should do NOTHING about it! Duh!
I am fine being remembered for pointing out yet again we will be better off in 100, 200 or 300 years keeping the economy strong and forging ahead with technological advancement than slowing it by draconian clamps on the economy (there are many clamps beside environmental remediation).
100 years ago we barely had simple planes and no antibiotics. Horses were still common in the streets. Had they slowed down their growth to "help" us, well, thanks for nuthin', Gentleman Jim.
The best thing we can do for future generations is keep things going.
I remain confident it is the hyperventillation crowd that will be proved murderously dangerous idiots in the long run. I am fine going down on record with that prediction.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Your entire argument is that you can't see how humans can affect the whole world thus they must not be able to. Bad reasoning.
Moreover, your argument that humans can't make it rain or affect the weather locally is patently false. It rains more during the weekend in human populated areas due to pollution build up during the work week. This same pattern is not seen in the open ocean lending support to the fact that our pollution is causing the variation. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6693/abs/394561a0.html
So, yes we can and do change the weather locally. We also change it globally.
Anyone who thinks they can affect the whole world this much is a moron or shill for some environmental group.
So how do you account for:
The hole in the ozone layer and the successful global response to fix it
Acid rain destroying forests and the successful global response to fix it?
Were they also not man made problems that affected the world as a whole?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
". To all you science people, correlation does not equal causation. "
no shit, Sherlock.
" How else do you explain the many periods of warming and cooling in the past long before humans even existed?"
There are different way the earth can warm. The effect of shoving more green house gasses into the atmosphere causes warming on top of other trends. There is no doubt about this at all.
https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publ...
" I rest my case"
You did not, in any way, 'make a case'. You might want to learn what the means.
If you want to make a case, you need to start by showing which one of these is false:
1) The Earth gets lots of light from the sun
2) Visible light emits IR when it strike something
3) CO2 absorbs energy from IR
4) Humans but more green house gasses into the air then can be absorbed.
The basic science on warming is trivial. Literally any of these can, nad have, been test by any decent College lab. Hell, even A good high school lab could do it. This is why deniers never talk about the actual science and only talk about cherry picked data points, or make ad homs.
So, the climate is warming due to more energy being trapped.
Climate Change is the impact AGW has on the climate. They are related but separate issues.
So, why would adding energy to a system not change it?
At this point, some knuckle head is about to slam his meat hooks onto his keyboard in what he thinks is a clever retort,. I will take this time to remind him the new equilibrium is only reach when the change in energy stops, and there is no rule saying the planet need to be livable when equilibrium is achieved.
More to the point:
Why do you think there is a 97% consensus? Why do you think countries whose best interest would be that there is no AGW agree there is AGW?
Some people think there is a weird conspiracy. That would mean the China is in on it for no reason. Why?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I believe that the climate will change (getting warmer & sea level rise). So, my question is... If I want the best property for possible self sufficiency where would that be? My first thoughts would be a minimum of 50' above sea level, and on the windward side of a large geographic feature (plateau / mountain) . The problem I haven't worked out is the variability of Ocean currents and prevailing winds? Will a currently Dry region increase in Precipitation, or should I stick with regions that get 20+ inches of rain on annual average? (and hope it doesn't change). I grew up on the "Tug Hill" plateau in New York, and their micro climate is influenced by their latitude, altitude, prevailing winds, and proximity to the Great Lakes. It may be a good place to track their micro climate going forward.
What I didn't notice in your post was any type of rebuttal, only a personal attack.
Fortunately, science isn't like religion. Reality exists regardless of belief, so it'll be what it'll be. Humanity will probably survive long enough one way or another to settle the outcome of this irrefutably.
In some case, it will be top down. This will be in things like, building codes, emission guidlines etc.
If it gets too bad, then I will be all for a top down solution involving guns and the removal of corporate charters.
This is like 97% of all astronomers saying , there is a dark asteroid coming in a couple a hundred years the size of australia, we need to take action. And then large corporation and anti tax groups say 'no it isn't'. And 'your model isn't 100% perfect, therefor it's wrong and invalid!" and people saying. I'll believe it when I see it!" even though it will be too late to do anything about it.
In that case, I would also support taking action, even if it had to be a forced action.
This isn't about a different of opinion on a sports team, or tax code, or privacy. Its about something that will make all the irrelevant if we don't take action now.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think you're just too young to have experienced the politics of the 60s and 70s.
Those that went through it are well aware of the intimate connection between environmentalism and anti-capitalism.
Much of that connection was hidden during the 80s and 90 as the economy took off while the environment still improved. But that connection still exists, with many in the environmental movement still holding to radical anti-capitalism.
How your comment got modded Insightful is a mystery. You don't give any arguments, you just postulate.
Humans can't even make it rain or change the weather locally
Really? Just one example: the notorious London smog. Most major cities used to be covered in the filthy stuff until burning coal in cities was largely banned; does that not qualify as weather? It certainly changed the atmosphere in large, local areas.
Anyone who thinks they can affect the whole world this much is a moron or shill for some environmental group
Hmm, right. Another example: man-made plastic pollution is now found everywhere - with the possible exception of Antarctica. You find it everywhere, even in the middle of the Pacific, and it does in fact affect wildlife. Or how about the fact that manmade chemicals can now be measured in just about every sample of water you can come about? The truth is that mankind does in fact influence every environment on the planet; the good news is that this also means that we can choose to use our influence to make things better.
But it's certainly not manmade
You know that, do you? How? Evidence, please.
correlation does not equal causation
However, it does equal correlation - and correlation means there is some sort of connection. Climatologists have come up with some very likely explanations, unlike you.
How else do you explain the many periods of warming and cooling in the past long before humans even existed?
That one is brought forth all the time, but it is a nonsense argument. The only thing it proves is that climate change can be caused by other things than human activity; nobody has ever denied that, and in fact, for many years the preferred theory was that we didn't affect climate, but we have had to abandon that idea, because the observable facts speak against it.
I rest my case before the nuts here censor my message
As you already knew, nobody was going to 'censor' your opinions. In fact, you have been modded up - strange as it seems. But you just had to try to milk the 'freedom of speech' card for what it was worth, didn't you? You should be ashamed.
The San Francisco valley is now a bay. The great barrier kangaroo hunting grounds have been flooded. The Siberian land bridge has been submerged. Irreversible, horrible, and irreparably damaged. Damaged I say! Worse yet, there will be no Frost Faire on the Thames this year.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
So what's your research? What data did you take to make this conclusion? What are your hypotheses and theories regarding the current warming trend? Oh wait, you're just knee-jerking because you think we can't possibly have done it.
We can't make it rain? You've not heard of cloud seeding, have you? No, we don't have the power to control the weather locally, because that involves some truly massive amounts of energy. Thing is, on a global scale, humanity throws out truly massive amounts of energy. How much?
Everyone knows of the Mount St. Helens eruption from 1980. That eruption was fairly large (though not that large, sure): it released 24 megatons of energy in total. In 2008, humanity consumed almost 144,000 TW-hours of energy. That's 5000 St. Helens eruptions every year, or 14 eruptions per day. We consume INCREDIBLE amounts of energy, yet you believe that our exhaust fumes cannot possibly affect the climate? Volcanoes are known to be able to, though!
Note that this isn't meant to be a scientific proof or anything of the sort. You just seem to be unaware of the scale to which humanity has developed. Yes, we are most certainly able to affect the planet on a global scale, and that includes global warming. If you need another example, I'd just point at what global thermonuclear war would've done to the planet and leave it at that.
Oh, and you know what's one of the big flaws in your argument? There can be many causes for one consequence... It's well accepted that there are natural cycles of cooling and warming, but that doesn't preclude that other factors can also contribute to the global temperature, like humans. For someone so quick to throw out the tired old meme of logic "correlation does not mean causation", you sure seem fine with making major logical faults when they suit your perspective.
I was reaching for revolutionary opinions but could only get the benign shelf....
The great thing about science and scientific predictions: in the end, whether it's right or wrong doesn't depend upon your political biases.
Kythe
The site has a science bias. It publishes articles written by scientists. Obviously this doesn't play well for those interested in the various narratives spun by Watts Up with That.
Global warming has affected all continents, oceans, etc. - very powerful
Yes. Just like humans. We've affected all continents, and all oceans.
Humans can't even make it rain or change the weather locally. Anyone who thinks they can affect the whole world this much is a moron or shill for some environmental group.
Except we can make rain and change the local weather. You're probably in a locally air-conditioned environment right now. There are billions of others in the same situation. That's a MASSIVE change in local weather in the aggregate. Nobody WANTS to deliberately do it on the Macro-scale, just like nobody wants to dam the straits of Gibraltar, but it could be done. And arguably, the Dust Bowl was a result of doing it unintentionally, by undesirable methods recognized and since corrected.
Global warming exists. Anyone who denies that is also a moron. But it's certainly not manmade. To all you science people, correlation does not equal causation. How else do you explain the many periods of warming and cooling in the past long before humans even existed??
How do you explain the difference between a human being starting a fire, and one started naturally? They exist, don't they?
I rest my case before the nuts here censor my message.
You need to stop hanging out with squirrels man.
I can't help but notice on this day in slashdot history there was an article posted in 2004 about how outsourcing is good for you. Likely 10 years from now we'll all be laughing just as hard at this 2014 article about how the world is ending due to climate change.
single average-sized car puts out 4.75 metric TONS of carbon every year
That sounds an unreasonably high figure.
Petrol weighs about 737g / l, so 4750Kg of petrol is 6445 litres.
Wikipedia says the carbon content of petrol is up to about 85%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
So 6445/0.85 = 7582 litres of petrol contain 4.75t of carbon.
Wikipedia suggests average fuel economy is somewhere around 5l / 100Km: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
7582*100/5 = 151640Km - I'm pretty sure that the average car doesn't travel 152Mm/year!
Lets assume you're talking about tons of CO2 rather than tons of carbon.
Apparently we multiply litres of petrol by 2.331 to get Kg of CO2 emitted: http://www.carbontrust.com/res...
So 4750/2.331 = 2038 litres. At 5l / 100Km, this gives us 2038*100/5 = 40760Km - ok, a vaguely more reasonable figure.
Apparently the average company car does around 30,000Km/year and the average private car does about 12,000Km: http://www.racfoundation.org/m...
So the average is going to be well under 41Mm and around an order of magnitude less than the 152Mm you claimed!
I'm certainly not saying that climate change is nothing to worry about - I think it's a big problem and whether or not you think it's man made, dumping vast amounts of crap into the atmosphere can't possibly be a bright idea. But I really wish people wouldn't just invent bogus "facts" to back up their arguments - the arguments should stand up for themselves, if you need bogus data to prop them up then you've got something really badly wrong somewhere.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
If we can just get control over every carbon life form on the planet and pass broad sweeping regulations to control all c02 output we might have a chance. We will need to create these systems of "force" to serve the greater good and once again avert the end of the world. I propose we create 10 new government regulatory agencies that will employ 10,000 specialist on climate change. These specialist much each pass 10 new policies per month that effect every aspect of our daily "American lives". When we lead by example the rest of the world will start caring..........
Or we could just populate Mars as a insurance policy, oh wait I just read the Mars polar icecaps are melting at a unprecedented rate along with every other planet in the solar system.........
How many times have doomsday predictions been proven correct?
Yes, thousands of scientists from around the world have successfully orchestrated a massive conspiracy in order to reduce fossil fuel consumption. They've managed to do this in the face of the fossil fuel industry being one of the largest and most profitable industries on the planet. They've managed to hide all evidence of this conspiracy and prevent a single defector from coming for with personal knowledge of this conspiracy. Even dissenters within the field of climate science know nothing of the conspiracy, which means the conspiracy was able to predict who would be willing to join with 100% accuracy.
Here's the thing, if they can do this I'm absolutely terrified of their capabilities. They've put to shame every single intelligence agency, terrorist organization, and criminal cartel on the planet. And all they want is for us to speed up the transition from fossil fuels, which we'll have to do anyway as they'll eventually run out. So I say give it to them, before they start applying their skills more directly.
to quote George Carlin: "The Earth is fine - the people are f*cked."
Denier! Denier! Everyone point and make an angry face!
Well then screw it. I'm fueling up the SUV and towing the ski boat down to the lake to enjoy these last few years before The End Of The Earth.
Have gnu, will travel.
I haven't see this much FUD since Eric S Raymond published the Microsoft Halloween Documents in 1998.
Which, is interesting given that the temperature recordings since 1998 have been flat and every climate model projection for that period has been wrong, and "scientists" are now trying to stuff the missing heat from failed computer models into the only place they can, which is similarly flawed computer models with "heat" trapped deep in the oceans, orginally, convient because there was limited historic data, but now this flaw is turning out to be equally untrue. Plus, the whole CERN Climategate docs.
Respect the Constitution
While the phrasing may not be great, GP does have a point: whether climate change is a real threat or not, it is most certainly pushed as a reason for increased government interference (as are many other things).
Will the last one turn off the lights ?
This is the delusional right wing spin on that argument, I know because I've lost a few really gullible older gentlemen in my family to the right wing delusion factory:
1) Those scientists are funded to do this research so it obviously behooves them to find warming and be alarmist so they can receive more grants and funding.
2) They are modeling into the future and nobody knows how accurate the models are, you cant predict everything that's going to happen.
And there was another one that I cant remember that got rattled off at me but I cant remember it. I gave up at that point in the conversation, wrote them off as the delusional idiots they are and convinced myself I'd make sure to go to the polls and try and cancel them out in any election. What's most irritating about it for me is it's mostly old ass (white) people that tune into the right wing outrage factory and they're basically flipping us all the bird on the way out the door.
Buy another LED light bulb? Buy an electric vehicle? Eat vegetarian?
Given there are no good alternatives when it comes to voting time, it seems like we're basically along for the ride..
4.75 TONS of carbon sure sounds like a lot...
Based on my best guesses from the Internet (Thanks Wolfram-Alpha), The weight of the Atmosphere is ~5.1 x 10^18 Kg, C02 is approx 395ppm. CO2 fraction is then 2.00 x 10^17 Kg or ~4.7 x 10^13 TONS One percent of that is ~4.7 x 10^11 TONS. So we need approx 10^11 cars to make up 1% of the CO2 fraction. My point, (and I do have one) is that TONS sound like a lot, but the Atmosphere is really BIG. Also 395ppm is not really a lot of CO2 as compared with historical evidence.
I want to know what the Witch Doctors of New Orleans think about it. We all know that that is the real authority on what is happening in the world.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
So, now that we've determined that climate change is inevitable, can we stop worrying and learn to love the bomb? To paraphrase my contemporaries: WOO! YOLO!...WOO!
" can you please tell me how we are going to deal with all of those people displaced by this natural phenomenon?"
That is all a part of his trickle down economics on how the wealthy's cast off cash will flow down to solve that problem, we just need to give the wealthy a LOT more money.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
A single average-sized car puts out 4.75 metric TONS of carbon every year
Bullshit.
Density of gasoline: 0.73 kg/L
Typical gas tank capacity: 57 L
Typical number of fillups per year: 52
0.73 * 57 * 52 = 2200 kg/year.
Gasoline contains various different organic molecules starting from hexane and running up through decane. Hexane is C6H14, so the carbon makes up 84% of the mass. Octane is C8H18, so the carbon makes up 80% of the mass. Call it 82%.
A single average-sized car emits 1800 kg of carbon every year. Less than 2 metric tons.
How many actual scientific doomsday predictions can you think of?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
China accounts for 42% of the carbon emissions. US and Europe combined are 20%, so even if "the rich" country bankrupted themselves trying, they can't solve the problem alone.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The site has a science bias. It publishes articles written by scientists. Obviously this doesn't play well for those interested in the various narratives spun by Watts Up with That.
You mean science like the Cook "97%" survey they supported and cited, which was such a laughable parody of responsible statistics that a middle-schooler could show it to be invalid?
You do realize there's almost no socialism anywhere in the world at this point, right? Even China has given it up.
The 97% consensus paper has been replicated numerous times. The scientists own evaluation of the reviewed papers found an even stronger result. Just last month another replication was published: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10...
Relax, the market will take care of it!
Really? Climate change groups have secret reports that need to be leaked because people are just DYING to get the details? Something about this concept seems...well complete bullshit.
The article's title is "Irreversible Damage Seen ..." and the very first line is "Humans risk causing irreversible and widespread damage ...". Well, which is it?
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
Respectfully, you have no idea what you are talking about.
1. You do know that coal is old vegetation right? Left alone not all of the carbon trees absorb gets dumped back into the atmosphere when they decompose. That's how coal came about in the first place! http://www.ket.org/trips/coal/agsmm/agsmmhow.html. Even before that, a forest where there was non before represents a hell of a lot of sequestered carbon in that live vegitation (or visa versa in the destruction case)
2. We're not talking about the number of carbon atoms here. We're talking about the contribution to global warming. Grass takes in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Cow eats grass. Cow farts out methane molecules containing the same carbon atoms the grass took in. While the number of carbon atoms did not change, it's still bad because the methane has a much larger impact on global warming than the same number of carbon atoms in the original from of carbon dioxide.
and I'm going to mod down everyone of those Climate change-deniers!
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
You really may want to check some other data on this.
Shows the math used:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html
And still, nothing will change. Millions of people will die horribly due to flooding, lack of food, lack of clean water and the wars that will become a near constant thing in the next century. Only a small, tiny percentage of the population will have access to the necessary resources -- and that will not change.
Let's be honest here, we -know- humanity. We called it down on ourself and sure as hell aren't going to fix it. This handbasket has long ago set a course for the firey regions and almost all of us are in it.
Pessimistic? Sure. Negative? Assuredly so.
But above all, realistic.
rather than this Republican celebration circle-jerk. We get it. You're happy there is irreversible damange. Just stop shoving it in our faces and go celebrate in private.
TL;DR - We lack the scientific knowledge to make accurate long-term predictions of the climate.
First, you might reference AR5 rather than AR4.
Your points have nothing to do with the IPCC scenarios, as they rely on hypothesized positive feedback mechanisms that increase warming. We've already seen most of the greenhouse effect warming from carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, these (non-predictive!) model scenarios seem to keep getting worse, while important factors are tied to carbon dioxide or hand waved away. We can't even measure and explain all of the natural factors, so claiming to have separated artificial ones is difficult.
There is only one natural energy input - the sun, which has been repeatedly disclaimed as irrelevant, even as the modern maximum has ended.
Meanwhile, there is far more research to be done on the climate effects of the dread chemical dihydrogen monoxide. Not only is it the most potent greenhouse gas, there remain significant scientific questions about cloud formation, which is not modeled with any accuracy.
The climate will continue to change, regardless of our (in)action. So long as the current homeostasis continues, as it has for the duration of the holocene, humanity will be fine. Nothing we've seen so far has left the historic bounds of natural variability. However, remember that natural variability says that this interglacial will eventually end, so we'd damned well better learn enough to maintain it with geoengineering before the next ice age drags down civilization. That's the only scientifically feasible doomsday scenario, not runaway warming.
Perhaps you should read the 97% consensus paper that is so heavily (mis)quoted. There's a lot of great science on climate, and more every year, but there is no consensus of looming disaster, except from those who wish to use it as an opportunity to force changes in society.
It's not my demise; it is the demise of others, sometime in the future. I fully expect to live out the rest of my life comfortably. I rather suspect that's the same set of conditions you face when you describe these worst case scenarios to others. Some of us are sensitive to the woes of future persons, some of us are not. But it's always at least one step removed from today's reality.
In the USA, just look at the number of people who would let the financially low performing suffer the slings and arrows of disease and injury without any particular concern or guilt; you can measure that directly by the resistance to the ACA, which remains substantial, even though it's working out pretty well if you actually take the time to look at the numbers. When people don't concern themselves with the other people in town, who are there and suffering right now, isn't it a bit optimistic to expect them to concern themselves with some abstract, unknown set of people who will exist after most of them have died anyway?
You're better off looking to technology to solve this than compassionate outlooks among the citizenry.
I'm going to go back to watching the news now, where I can learn more about us shooting up Afghanistan for no particular reason other than to prop up our MI complex, as we've kind of worn out Iraq now. You know, because we care. We'd be in Africa "helping" them too, you know, if we needed more income. I'm sure their day will come, though. Both Africa and South America are deep future market resources for our weapons manufacturers. Caring. It's what we do!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
As pointed out by James Hansen in his book "Storms of my Grandchildren" it would take a small factory dumping chloroflorcarbons into the atmosphere to prevent the next ice age. It is trivial.
...if you concoct a way to kill all the ISIL assholes while mitigating climate change? That might win some support.
I'm not too interested in you conspiracy theories (for instance your wacky theories on Obama's birth cirtificate: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...).
Ad-hominem at its best. Of course that's what I have learned to expect from "Laysej", otherwise known as "khayman80". Someone who seems actually proud to be running sock-puppet accounts on Slashdot. So... what does "conspiracy theory" have to do with one person's bad paper? Are YOU suggesting that there is some kind of "conspiracy" going on? I didn't. In fact I have several times described here on Slashdot how a situation can look like "conspiracy" to some people without there actually being any conspiracy. So the only person suggesting ANYTHING about "conspiracy" here is you.
The 97% consensus paper has been replicated numerous times.
Hah! Has it really? By whom? Are you referring to Naomi Oreskes, who was also blatantly guilty of selection bias?
This "97%" figure came from a selected subset of the respondents, who were only 29% of those surveyed. And the subjective selection process was not even remotely valid or even scientific. Objective interpretation of the same data came up with a figure more like 0.5%.
Cook's paper is an even bigger joke than Oreskes' paper was. And so is the work of Cook's friend and collaborator Lewandowski.
You're a birther? Fuck me, you're an imbecile. I've lost what little respect I had for your opinions. You have to be insane or a deliberate liar to be a birther.
If we are optimistic about a technological solution, wouldn't it be in our interest to move forward with those solutions instead of continuing to get our energy from burning stuff?
Shut the fuck up you imbecile. If you can't even accept a birth certificate your head is so far up your own rectum no one can hear you.
Nah, it's almost certain to be big cats. Perfect apex predators. They can deal with heat, cold, wind; they can kill anything, climb like crazy, swim, they're fast as hell, stronger than just about anything, they instinctively use available terrain features for cover and shelter, they come equipped with deadly weapons, and they're very smart and wily. Common mutations already include thumbs and other extra digits, and they have a short enough breeding and maturation cycle that populations can recover in a very short time span, given only that mankind isn't around to defeat them using already developed technology.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
If they say this often enough someone might eventually believe it.
"Laysej", otherwise known as "khayman80"
Another conspiracy theory?
Probably a couple dozen, evenly split between nuclear holocaust and enviro-catastophes, and that's just limiting it to those whose due dates are already past. Nothing interesting happened. (Calling them scientific is a bit of a stretch, however.)
There are plenty of religious ones, too.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I am sure that they are laughing at this one...
Your calculations are probably overly optimistic by assuming 5L/100km, which while a reasonable manufacturer's estimate for the newest passenger cars, doesn't reflect the "average" efficiency of the fleet of variably-aged vehicles on the road, or the choices that people make when choosing their vehicles. Those "fleet" numbers tend to float around 1.5 to 2x as bad, depending upon country and whether or not you strictly include only passenger cars rather than "light trucks" that include SUVs and other popular passenger vehicles. "Your mileage may vary", a lot, but the averages are reasonably well established.
Some calculations incorporate more than just CO2 emissions because, of course, cars emit more than CO2. They include things such as NO2 and even apparently some methane, which can be expressed in terms of their greenhouse gas effects too. It would be CO2 equivalent rather than strictly CO2, which might be another source for a discrepancy.
In any case, you may be interested in this US EPA page which estimates the average output at exactly the 4.75 tonnes/year/vehicle that the previous poster suggested. All the data that went into the calculation is outlined on that page, although the mix of Imperial and metric units makes it a bit hard to follow without doing some conversions along the way. Calling it 4.75 tonnes/year for *cars* would be wrong, because it includes more than cars. It includes all those SUVs, light trucks, and other common passenger vehicles that get significantly poorer mileage.
You have group-think. The problem gets even larger when lots of money is on the line on one side of an issue; scientists supporting global warming claims are getting BILLIONS of dollars from governments, think tanks, and wealthy donors and those at universities are getting tenured positions. Scientists opposing global warming caims are not getting any of these things, and have even recieved death threats against not only themselves but also their families.
There is no mechanism to trap carbon underground anymore. The old mechanism, where trees grow then fall over and don't rot away is no longer an option. As millions of years ago bacteria and fungus evolved to break down the tough cell walls of trees and woody plants. All that coal we pull out of the ground is a one way trip. One way, unless we create some rather cutting edge technology and invest a lot of energy (and money) into the process of sequestration.
It would be far simpler to ban all fossil fuels today. Sure, people will starve when the farms can't be plowed. But it's a reversible problem. Having many farms blow away in drought and sand storms is going to starve more people long term.
Obviously banning fossil fuels would have consequences, it would be a hard road initially. But we would survive it.
But no, let's all slide into oblivion together. That is the more comfortable path.
The press release for Mr. Obama's books even stated that he was born in Kenya. You would think an astute scholar would have noticed a discrepancy about his birthplace and have it corrected. He knew he could play it for all it was worth, and suckers would believe any controversy was his opponents' fault. But then, I expect no less from you than complete lack of thinking skills on any subject related to your religion.
Sounds good! Where do I sign up?
Oh. Wait.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Cars are a red Herring for carbon emissions. It is Electricity that is the big issue.
The simple solution is to replace coal with nuclear, and wind backed by natural gas peaking plants.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Now that we know it is irreversible, there is no longer ANY reson to do cap-and-trade, or any other tax-and-regulate scheme to save us all from AGW. In fact, we should shut down all the climate study activities immediately and re-direct all that "green" money into something more practical and actually important: developing the tech to allow people to live with the effects of the (now admitted to be unavoidable) consequences.
Time to re-open the coal mines and fire-up those power plants that give consumers the most energy for their dollars! We need the increased economic activity. We need to shift the money from studying carbon sequestration, carbon emissions, etc into studies of improved dams, dikes, locks and levies, wildfire fighting capabilities, and many other things that (unlike all the "green" garbage) are actually always useful to people all around the world in all climates due to basic weather instabilities.
This isn't "Watts up with that" where there's a financial payment for having the right opinions.
Actually, it operates on exactly that principal. The owners and operators of the site are financially dependent on the ideas espoused in the articles, and are in fact publicity whores with more interest in popular opinion that truth.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Your source does not say that IPCC members are not scientists, as that would be an obvious lie. They are scientists and associated academics. Also you should try finding better sources if you seek to be persuasive.
No, I am not a "birther", as I have explained many times here on Slashdot, in some detail.
Do you always believe what other people say, as long as it fits your pre-conceived notions?
Another conspiracy theory?
No, but I find it very interesting that both of you have the same mannerisms, you're the only two who have written certain things to me, or used certain phrases, and usually about the same subjects. Not to mention the often "fortuitous" timing of your comments.
If you're not a sock-puppet, then you're a clone. And that's very far from a compliment.
I find it very interesting that both of you have the same mannerisms...
You don't just "find it very interesting". You have jumped to the conclusion that several people who disagree with you must all be the same person. That's just nutty.
Now it's irreversible and already done, so can we stop arguing and just get back to business and do away with nonsensical carbon offsets and so called "climate summits"?
Once the sky has fallen, you can't put it back up.
Add nuclear weapons to the massive societal disruptions you mention, and you might indeed have a situation that's unsurvivable by humans as a species....
--PM
Shut the fuck up you imbecile. If you can't even accept a birth certificate your head is so far up your own rectum no one can hear you.
Yes, we've observed you playing the "La la la la, can't hear you" game for quite some time now.
about anything but money. It's a system of conversion of resources to Wal-mart quality goods and services, plus some actual good stuff for the 1%.
Yes much like the libs that blame everything on AGW. "Extreme" Weather? AGW!!! Increased disease? AGW!! Racial tensions? AGW!!!!!
How can anyone take someone serious that say weather is not the climate but "extreme weather" is a result of climate change? Yes, I know all the bullshit that surrounds that little theory, but why they in a debate when a person that believes in AGW and touts the science of it all, ends debate when you use science to poke hole in the theory?
Throw in the democrats programing the lemmings to spout over and over "it's the Koch brothers fault" to everything then it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out the scam of it all. It's all about money. Headline like the one to this story keep the dollars flowing.
Now the GW pansies can STFU and we can move on with our lives, knowing that any attempts to save us are futile and a waste of money. Me, I'm gonna go cut down a tree and drink a cold brew in celebration.
You don't just "find it very interesting". You have jumped to the conclusion that several people who disagree with you must all be the same person. That's just nutty.
Really? Can you point out where I have said this to other people? Hint: no, you can't, because I haven't. You're the only one doing this.
Do you always believe what other people say, as long as it fits your pre-conceived notions?
khayman80's links are to your own posts, claiming Obama's birth cert to be a fake.
Of course it may be that you no longer belive in the conspiracy theory you used to expound. But denying it just makes you a liar. And reflects on the nonsense you post on other topics, such as AGW.
Wikipedia says the carbon content of petrol is up to about 85%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
So 6445/0.85 = 7582 litres of petrol contain 4.75t of carbon.
I'll start by saying thank you for the analysis; that was thought provoking.
.85 = 5.938 tons of petroleum.
.737 Kg/L ) = 8,057 L.
:-) )
The numerator above seems off: what is 6445 ?
For the weight of a big tub of petroleum containing 4.75t carbon, I think you'd have:
4.75 tons of carbon /
To see how many Liters of petroleum that would be, we get:
5,938 Kg of petroleum / (
Using that average fuel economy of 5L/100Km yields a range of
8,057L / ( 5L/100Km ) = 1,611 / (1/100km) = 161,100 Km
(Or 100,040 miles for our readers in Burma, Liberia and the United States.)
Which is indeed a LOT of driving in one year.
The oracle of Yahoo Answers suggested that 19,000 to 24,000 km (12,000 to 15,000 miles) is a more reasonable average.
So by carbon weight, yeah... the gp's claim for Carbon is roughly a factor of 8 too high (161,100 km / 20,000 km/yr).
You raise a good point considering whether the gp meant 4.75 tons of CO2 instead of carbon.
To do this I think we need to revise our petroleum footprint.
You'll recall we first derieved that above based on just the target carbon weight.
We'll take the same approach for our target CO2 weight.
So... to get 4,750 KgCO2 emissions we need to burn a certain amount of petroleum.
That works out to 4,750 KgCO2 / (2.331 L/KgCO2) = 2,037.8 L of petroleum.
Which yields an alleged annual distance of:
2,038 L / ( 5L / 100Km )
= 408 / ( 1 / 100Km)
= 408 * 100Km
= 40,800 Km (25,351 miles)
Which is closer, but still off by a factor of at least 2 unless maybe they were talking fleet cars.
*shrug* don't know... it is hard to tell what point they were making.
(and yeah, this was much more fun to do over lunch than reading yawn-inducing project requirements
Translation: Experienced members of the most successful and technologically advanced people on earth. People who, except for their failure in raising the current generation, generally did things correctly.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The chart showed global ocean heat content from 0-2000m. Other papers show the same result. The article you cited does not say otherwise. Did you even read it?
China makes everything, for everybody. We pay them to do this, part of the reason everybody pays them is because they are willing and we are not. Since we are not immediately and directly impacted by CO2 ...plus it is invisible... we are simply too shallow to realize it harms us indirectly. Just as people shop at Walmart and wonder why their jobs disappeared (forcing them to shop at Walmart more.)
Is it MY fault I shot you in the foot, when you told me to do it?
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I love how the Rothchilds use fear to play humanity like fools. First communism, Then terrorism, now climate change. All the inside jobs such as gulf of tonkin, 9/11, and even the latest about how the James Foley video has been completely discredited as a fake by experts (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkoSo2PrX8k) - In order to push the new Iraq agenda to justify bringing in thousands of new troops - all agendas pushed by the Rothchilds and their banking cabal friends to enslave humanity and own us. Back to the IPPC though
First we know for a FACT that all of the "science" of the IPPC was completely discredited. Hockey stick graphs, blatant lies, and in bed with banks/big government.
Second we know that the entire "Man made climate change" movement was started by Rothschild bankers in order to tax humanity for their "carbon footprint" source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdqNds9pNuI
So now that we know the IPPC has been discredited as a complete tool and has nothing to do with science, can we stop referencing them as an actual source on anything scientific? You think slashdot might know better, but I guess not.
In True Scotsman style, you can't be a "birther" unless you have rabies. Except you've previously implied that what makes someone a "birther" is claiming Obama's birth certificate is fake:
What you propose is an import tariff and possibly a local carbon tax. This will not work because:
A) Any new taxes are for socialists. period. no compromise.
B) Lowering taxes is good but a completely separate issue with raising taxes; you can not link the two no matter how logical. See A.
C) Tariffs are anti-capitalist. for communists... insert your favorite slander here... The invisible hand of (god) the free market shall not be shackled by tariffs, blasphemer!
D) The US Chamber of Commerce is always right and they oppose such things (please ignore the Chinese behind the curtain. No, we won't show you our member list.)
E) Big Government. Government is only for shooting protesters and executing criminals; how dare you socialists demand government interfere with the market! (aka our lobbyists and "donors")
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Sure. You accused an AC of being a sock puppet of me because she agreed with me... or are you not considering her "other people" because you've already concluded that she's me?
Anybody find it odd that the skeptics (if given enough time) end up talking about Climate Engineering?
The very science and experts they distrust as part of some left wing global conspiracy are supposed to engineer (use science) to make the planet so they can continue to do whatever they wish? WTF, is it with this new age "science will save us" religious-like belief that people have? So many of them are religious types or superstitious (same thing to me) as well and yet they see no parallels?
Why do smart people have to continually be saving the morons from themselves? You'd think we'd never have evolved if this was always this case.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Western University Humanities departments, a theme park in Poland and North Korea.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
In that case you've really got this locked up quite tight. Any evidence contradicting your theory can be dismissed as part of the ruse itself.
Your mileage is way off. 20km/liter is about 60mpg, which is very rare outside of small hybrid engines. using an optimistic 30mpg as the standard gives about 60,000 miles per year, which I'll agree is still way off. 15,000 miles is more typical in the US at least.
So using that estimate, it looks like 1.2 metric tons of carbon is more typical for actual emissions. If you factor in the the hydrocarbons used to deliver said fuel and build the car, I'm sure it pumps it up (not 4x though).
Anything that has Michael Bloomber tied to it is something I assume to be propaganda.
A soil ecosystem takes centuries to mature. Good luck farming the rocky glaciated areas that are now boreal forest.
How were they supposed to raise us when they were so busy leaving our mothers for other women and buying sports cars because there's no really good male plastic surgery augmentation for what they seek to augment. They simply stood on the shoulders of their fathers, then shirked their responsibility to anyone else in this world later in life in an effort to get theirs.
But yeah they were obviously damn geniuses, doing things the right way, the lot of them.
we've almost certainly been pushing the system 'up hill' from a local stable point. If we stopped now, it probably would slip back down to that stable point we find comfortable. Keep pushing until we pass the top of the hill, and it starts sliding down into a completely different stable point -- that's irreversible. I hope we find that new local minimum comfortable.
Carbon has an atomic weight of about 12, oxygen about 16. You're right about the carbon; the previous post was misrepresenting CO2 numbers as carbon numbers. If we multiply your 41Mm of carbon by (12+16*2)/12 (and thus calculate the CO2 emissions from the C emissions), we get 150Mm of CO2. This probably explains the previous post's error.
Only problem is that the hole in the ozone layer is not fixed, no-one takes any notice of it anymore because they can make more money out of Global Warming
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
has been completely wiped out. The huge lakes left after the retreat of the ice sheets flooded nearly 100,000 square miles.
The conspiracy is not "to reduce fossil fuel consumption", it's to gain political power. It's not a hidden conspiracy, mostly it's quite open in its actions; it's the motives that are somewhat hidden because few people lusting after political power have any need to communicate that lust.
And they haven't successfully hidden all evidence: East Anglia.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
obviously, because global warming may lead to something very bad and very $$; if it doesn't lead to these things, not a lot of people will care.
How do we know global warming might lead to something bad , at least in a quantitative sense ?
All (all) of our detailed knowledge is from computer programs (climate models) which simulate changes in the future
However, It is an observed fact (fyfe) that over the last ten years, the surface temp of the earth has not increased as much as predicted by models; the models fail.
The models also can't reconstruct the last few thousand years (Liu), where we Know what happened.
This anomaly is the main current argument of denialists (those who think global warming is not occurring, or is not manmade, or is not important) and cause for concern among climate scientists.
Several attempts have been made to find the missing heat without great acceptance, eg Cowtan (who are not, afaik, climatologists) say that the missing heat is in the Arctic, which is not well measured by instruments.
It appears that Chen and Tung have found the answer: the earth is warming, but the heat is going into the ocean instead of the atmosphere.
SO: the models are clearly not accurate even on a 10year time scale.
so why should we take seriously alarmist views about the future ?
I guess it is probability: if there is even a X% chance that something really bad could happen, is it worth spending ~ 0.5% of global GDP (~ 850 billion dollars a year) to prevent this possible catastrophre ?
Me personally, my house is about 5 miles and 200 feet up from the Atlantic Ocean, so global warming is good for me: I get beachfront property......
Fyfe
http://hypergeometric.wordpres...
liu
http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
cowtan
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
chen and tung
http://www.washington.edu/news...
At that point, you get an amputation and adapt to being left handed.
Or if you had cancer throughout your body, and the doctor announces, "I'm sorry, but we can't stop the cancer, the damage is irreversible", would you want to spend millions of dollars and incomprehensible pain for useless chemo and radiation therapy, or start hospice care and get to work on your bucket list?
Yup - and the alarmist predictions have been laughably wrong.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Wikipedia suggests average fuel economy is somewhere around 5l / 100Km: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
...then wikipedia is wrong as hell! This translates to the US equivalent ~47mpg. I can count the cars available in the US on one hand that even *advertise* a fuel economy this high. A quick google search tells me that the average mpg of cars *sold* in theUS in recent years has been around half that.
Let's look at the credibility of the AGW alarmists. There is an extremely complex non-linear partial differential equation that describes the temperature of a finite volume of atmospheric gas over time.
Variables in the equation include initial conditions, radiation from the sun, the effect of cloud cover, humidity, the magnetic field of the earth, distance from the poles, heat constants of the various elements that make up the surface and near surface layers of the earth, and the makeup of the atmospheric gas. Nobody knows all of the variables, how they interact, or if the "constants" are really constant (for example the flux of cosmic radiation, or the strength and direction of the earth's magnetic field). What these AGW promoters are saying is that the entire equation boils down to how much CO2, a trace gas at 0.04%, is in the atmosphere, and not only that, but only the tiny part that man has added since around 1900. Never mind that the temperature has been going up and down for millennia, no it is the 0.003% CO2 from humans that is the forcing function. This does not even pass the laugh test and these "scientists" know it.
Deniers? Versus what, that you are an AGW climate molester? Probably a molester of specifically very young childlike climate?
Being on the windward side of several mountain ranges doesn't seem to be helping California.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
To single out one variable, namely radiation through the atmosphere and the associated âgreenhouse effect,â(TM) as being the primary driving force of atmospheric and oceanic climate, is a simplistic and absurd way to view the complex interaction of forces between the land, ocean, atmosphere, and outer space.
Simplistic and absurd. Gee, where have I seen that before? Oh, yeah. Your other posts here.
Yet, here I sit in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, surrounded by papers (peer-reviewed, I guess I should add) which conclude:
(1) For the past two decades at least, and possibly for the past seven decades, the Earthâ(TM)s true surface air temperature has likely experienced no net change;
(2) there should have been a sizable CO2-induced increase in atmospheric radiative forcing during that time, but there wasnâ(TM)t. That must mean that a suite of compensatory feedbacks overwhelmed the âoegreenhouseâ impetus for warming; implying, therefore,
(3) that the planet will not warm from any man-produced increases in CO2; indicating
(4) any increases in temperature will likely fit the global trend of +0.048ÂC/decade, that is, about 0.5ÂC this centuryâ" the rate of warming that has existed since the Little Ice Age, centered around 1750 in Europe, South America, and China; suggesting
(5) that the heat storage in the upper ocean takes place in the upper 100 meters, and the magnitude provides a rise in temperature at those depths of 0.5ÂC in the past 50 years (in those parts of the ocean for which we have data);
(6) this global warming (and cooling) of the ocean occurs on biennial, ENSO, decadal and interdecadal period scales; thence,
(7) the ocean thermal changes on centennial-period scales, which appear as the warming trend through the past 50 to 100 years, can be explained by means of intrinsic internal modes of the Earth going through their normal cycle of warming and cooling, independent of both radiative and anthropogenic influences.
If you tell me that the Earth is going to change for the worse, and there's nothing we can do to stop it, then my response is we shouldn't try. We should instead work on how to survive the change. No reason to waste resources trying to stop something that can't be, spend them on dealing with it instead.
Likewise if you tell me Earth is doomed, and there's nothing we can do to stop it, then my response is that we should just not worry about the future at all, and enjoy what time we have left because there isn't anything else to do.
However if you tell me that we are creating a problem, but we can fix that problem by changing what we are doing, then I'm interested in hearing what you propose we do, what it would cost, how it would mitigate the problem, etc, etc.
If a problem is solvable then it makes sense to talk about what it would take to solve it. If a problem is just something we can't do anything about then we shouldn't worry about trying.
That has nothing to do with measuring ocean heat content. That is just the opinion of some guy on the internet regarding the implications of increased ocean heat content. Someone who is apparently not that familiar with the concept of conservation of energy.
Yup. You found a guy on the internet who represents the 2%. Good job. Even this guy admits that the ocean is warming, so you also managed to find a link that contradicts the point you are trying to make.
There wasn't any "evidence". It was an AC who jumped into the conversation, in EXACTLY the same way you and khayman80 do. Using some of the very same phraseology, and the timing was (yet again) very weirdly coincidental. Further, khayman80 is known to have used sock-puppet accounts, and even admitted it to me once. (He doesn't seem to realize that, but there is a record of it.)
So no, bringing up an AC sock-puppet is not really evidence of anything, since it is known that khayman80 has used them.
My point is that you've been spreading nonsense like a firehose for years, and each time your Sauron-class Morton's demon convinces you that you're right and the other person isn't very good at refutation. This doesn't just apply to your nonsense about climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Casimir effect and Maxwell's equations, creationists, Obama birthers and 9/11 Truthers.
It also applies to your nonsense about conservation of energy, beta decay, quantum computing, nuclear isomers, Cherenkov radiation, virtual particles, infinities, string theory, cold fusion, R o s s i ' s E - C a t L E N R h o a x, peltier coolers, GPS, bicycle stability, control theory, hyperbolic trajectories,
Is this the record you claim I "don't seem to realize" or can you link to an earlier squirrel?
A lot of people are completely against this idea (government intrusion on freedom, etc.) but that's the only way we've ever solved problems based on the "tragedy of the commons"
Really... government coercion the only way? No one voluntarily shares their assets for the benefit of the greater good? The facts say otherwise:
"Total giving to charitable organizations was $335.17 billion in 2013 (about 2% of GDP). This is an increase of 4.4% from 2012. Although this is the fourth straight year that giving has increased, it is still not at the pre-recession level of $349.5 billion seen in 2007."
Charitable giving increases as a person's disposable income increases -- and not linearly, either: as income grows to exceed a person's basic needs, people tend to increase the percentage of income given to charity. That's why a 10x increase in GDP would result in greater than a 10x increase in charitable giving.
So if we just resume pursuing pro-growth policies for a few more decades, private charity will be more than capable of providing the entire social safety net -- bigger and better than our current social safety net -- and government will be able to streamline itself and stop performing that function. (Which will be a quite virtuous circle that has further benefits for the economy.) There is also quite a bit of value in the fact that it will be 100% funded by voluntary contributions, and 0% by coercive confiscation.
When philanthropists perceive that the social safety net is well-funded, they will shift a portion of their giving to other charitable purposes of their choosing: for example, subsidizing clean energy projects.
Remember, pursuing pro-growth policies is the key to realizing this rosy future. That means growth we come by honestly, as opposed to short-term growth that is forced by unsustainable, house-of-cards measures -- like deficit spending, or the Fed holding interest rates artificially low.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Global warming exists. Anyone who denies that is also a moron. But it's certainly not manmade.
I don't get the focus on whether or not the warming is anthropogenic. Should we ignore all problems that we didn't make?
Supposing that the warming isn't primarily anthropogenic, there's still plenty of reason to believe that the greenhouse gases we're adding are making it worse, and in fact we can even make some reasonable estimates of how much worse they're making it.
At the end of the day, you'd really better hope that you're wrong about our ability to modify the climate. Because the current climate of Earth is not typical. In fact, there isn't really a "typical" climate for the planet. Ice core histories show us that it swings between much hotter than it is, and much, much colder (by "colder", think "equatorial oceans frozen 30 feet deep for millenia"). Both extremes will be unpleasant for us, and I say "will", not "would", because it's gonna happen. When? We have no idea. We know that climate changes can happen very rapidly (couple of decades), even without an obvious precipitating event (big meteor, supervolcano eruption, etc.), and that they come at apparently-random intervals.
So if we want this planet to be nice for us long-term, we'd better learn to engineer our climate. Or get even better at adapting our local environment. Or both.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Right. So you've never accused anyone else of being a sock puppet because everyone else you've accused is a sock puppet. I concede. Your logic cannot be refuted.
We a rock solid apocalypse. Hopefully 6/7ths of the world will die out.
That has nothing to do with measuring ocean heat content. That is just the opinion of some guy on the internet regarding the implications of increased ocean heat content. Someone who is apparently not that familiar with the concept of conservation of energy.
Hilarious. Yeah, just "some guy" on the internet. Well, let's see:
Robert E. Stevenson, an oceanography consultant based in Hawaii, trains the NASA astronauts in oceanography and marine meteorology. He was Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans from 1987 to 1995, and worked as an oceanographer for the U.S. Office of Naval Research for 20 years. ... author of more than 100 articles and several books, including the most widely used textbook on the natural sciences.
Right. Just some guy. And yes, his article DOES address heat content. And has about 40 references. (I didn't count.)
Typical warmist ad-hominem bullshit. "I've never heard of him so he must be an idiot and wrong."
(5) that the heat storage in the upper ocean takes place in the upper 100 meters, and the magnitude provides a rise in temperature at those depths of 0.5ÂC in the past 50 years (in those parts of the ocean for which we have data);
(6) this global warming (and cooling) of the ocean occurs on biennial, ENSO, decadal and interdecadal period scales; thence,
(7) the ocean thermal changes on centennial-period scales, which appear as the warming trend through the past 50 to 100 years, can be explained by means of intrinsic internal modes of the Earth going through their normal cycle of warming and cooling, independent of both radiative and anthropogenic influences.
If you read the whole article, he very explicitly says that the climate is NOT experiencing anthropogenic warming. Based on his pile of peer-reviewed papers (see his list of references).
If you want to argue the matter, then go argue with him. If you want to refute his references, then do so. I'm just reporting what he said. It's kind of pointless to argue with me about it.
That isn't what I said, so it isn't my logic in question here.
So you're unable/unwilling to produce these records that you claimed I "don't seem to realize"? Irony?
Kill yourself, kill yourself now, we'll give you a coupon for 25% off a coffin!
Condescendingly lecturing a veteran like this was wrong: "Bullshit, dude. Maybe where your tour was... Just plain bullshit. ... Give up, man. You are trying to argue with someone who knows what she's [she's?!?] talking about. ... Jeez, dude. Do you even read your own bullshit? ... You may know more than I do about what the military is currently doing, but I do know something about 5.56 ballistics, thank you very fucking much. ... maybe you know more about what the military is doing these days, but if that's what they're doing, they're being just plain stupid. ..."
No, after delt0r answered, you insisted he must not have understood your point. After I repeated delt0r's point, you claimed that you had got yourself sorted out already and accused me of butting in and insulting you.
You've repeated this pattern ad nauseum. After your neutrino rant, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong and asked me "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" when I actually had repeated that part and responded to it.
It's more likely that your Sauron-class Morton's demon told you that it says you were correct. Just like you've insisted you were still correct about punctuation despite never providing sentences with the plurals of i, a, and u.
Because you're galloping faster than any Gish Gallop I've ever seen, and because despite your protests you seldom accept refutations for longer than about 5 minutes anyway.
LOL. There are some local climate contrarians (to put it nicely) here in Oregon who are convinced I'm a sock puppet for David Appell. I find it amusing and an indication of how easily they latch on to erroneous ideas.
I don't know how they are financially dependent on that. Don't you think we'd be studying the climate regardless of the reality of global warming?
As far as being more interested in popular opinion than truth, that argument always baffles me. There is a reality to what they are studying that can't be changed by bias or wishful thinking. As scientists their reputations a dependent accurately reporting their findings. If they are found to have purposely fudged their research their careers are over and their reputation is mud. It's possible they are wrong but if they are they are honestly wrong.
Get the world's population down to 20 million to save for planet. Most of humanity must die, except for a few handpicked elites and enough servants to sustain their lifestyle. For everyone else, its off to the gas chambers.
The ocean is warming. To disprove this you linked to a site that concedes the ocean is warming. Good job.
In order to disprove the fact that the ocean is warming you've linked to a site that concedes that the ocean is warming. Good job.
I suppose, if we have to be sock puppets, we could do worse. :P
Oooo, it's a "leaked" report. Boy, that must make it even more important and legitimate than all of the other reports of global warming / climate change / whatever. Just follow the money. If the climate isn't "changing" then there's no need for more research grant money, Al Gore carbon tax scams, etc. Wake up, sheeple.
"If this bill is not passed there will be martial law tomorrow" - Financial Crisis
I don't particularly like folks who spit rubbish to incite fear among the masses to have their way i.e. global warming.
Actually, some of them (such as Joshua Halpern a.k.a. ‘Eli Rabett’) are paid directly by taxpayer funding to blog on places like realclimate.org. So, yes, there is a financial motivation.
As far as "well what's wrong with that if they are telling the truth", that always seems to be the go-to, but it apparently is only acceptable to trot out this defense for alarmists, and never for skeptics like Watt. The minor and late-to-the-game contribution from Heritage that alarmists use to beat Watt over the head with is nothing but a red herring and ad hominem used to distract from debate on the real issues anyway, and it pales in comparison to Peter Gleick's fraud and forging of documents to discredit his opponents.
Be that as it may, you seem to be under the impression that these guys have some interest in "truth" or "honesty", and that is simply not the case. As Gleick demonstrated, they have no interest in truth, and any will use any means to further their agenda. They are only interested in science when it supports that agenda, and when it doesn't they will throw out science and use other tactics instead. There are many examples of editing of comments on the site, decption and lies, etc., - there is no real discussion allowed. That's not surprising since it is run by Fenton Communications, run by David Fenton, an unapologetic anti-Semite and propagandist that would have made Goebbels proud.
The point of the site isn't even to promote science, it's to promote "consensus".
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Why of course! Because many of these "charitable organizations" are 503c's for "research and non-partisan education" like the Heritage Foundation and MoveOn.org who's tireless work benefits us all so much.
That is all.
The people at the IPCC seem to have a learning disability. They don't seem to understand that publishing DIRE predictions year after year only works if such predictions actually come to pass... Especially once one has been caught lying with statistics already...
What these idiots (and others) are doing is more harmful to climate science, more harmful to the environment, and more harmful to the planet than all the so called evil opposition. Because every time some fool stands up and tries to "Sell" climatology using a dire prediction - and that prediction fails to come to pass - the credibility of climatology in general is called into question.
Murphy was an optimist
The ocean is warming. To disprove this you linked to a site that concedes the ocean is warming. Good job.
The ocean is always warming. Somewhere. And cooling elsewhere. There are known natural cycles. So yes, the ocean may be warming in some areas, but let's go back to context: OP was about deep warming that stores away supposed anthropogenic warming. The author of the article I linked to says it isn't so.
So... nice attempt to move the goalposts, but it didn't work. AGW theory refuted. Again.
Humans haven't caused the climate to change or warm. The planet has been in a warming cycle for the last 50,000 years. The current Global Warming or Climate change only takes into account the human activity for the last couple hundred years. The planet on an average has been significantly hotter and colder than where it currently is over the course of the life of the planet. We as good custodians of the planet should not pollute, pure and simple. Why? Simply because this is our ONLY home, we should keep it in as good of a condition as we can. It is in our best interest to do so. Our contributions to our planet are having an impact and will continue to do so unless we change our direction. The planet will be here long after we are gone and life will most likely continue as it has in the past. But that future may not have humans in it unless we change and evolve. At the rate we are going, I see our own extinction within the next 200 years.
Right now the ocean is (on average) warming by quite a bit. Here is the latest data: http://davidappell.blogspot.co... . This may be due to natural cycles (which it is!), but if the ocean is warming, and the atmosphere is warming, then there is a radiative energy imbalance causing that warming. That's physics.
What we are seeing in atmospheric temperatures is a steady increase in temperatures due to GHG. Transposed on top of this is the natural ebb and flow of energy from the atmosphere to the ocean and back. This is called ENSO and PDO. When we are in a negative phase of the PDO and ENSO we see more energy moving from the atmosphere to the ocean. When we are in a positive phase we see a spike in atmospheric temperatures (See the super-ElNino of 1998 for example).
So what we are measuring makes perfect sense to a scientist. When you look at the evidence (if you are willing to look at the data at all) you see "desperate" people "trying to pretend" something or other. What nonsense!
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 14 and almost 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
Here are 2 predictions. First I predict that CO2 will continue to increase because
China and other countries don't care about CO2. They don't even care about real pollutants much less CO2. Second I predict it will get colder over the next 20-30 years. Why?
Dr Libby in the 1970s said that "looking forward it will stay cold until the mid 80s (it did), then it will warm by about 1/4 degree F until the end of the century (it did), then it gets cold". When asked how cold she was predicting a 1-2 degree F drop with an
outside chance of a 3-4 degree drop. Pray it is the former.
Dr Easterbrook in 2001 said the PDO was done it's positive warm cycle and that we were in for 25-30 years of cold weather. How cold? We have his good, bad and ugly predictions based on previous negative cold phases of the PDO. Pray it is the first one.
Dr Abdusamatov in 2006 said we are at the top of the temperature sine wave and it will be 200 years of cold weather. Pray he is wrong.
Why do I join with them and side with their predictions? While past performance is not a guarantee of future correctness it is a lot better record than the IPCC and their
dozens of models of which none have been accurate. They are all based on CO2 controlling the climate and the other 3 are all cyclical natural cycles. I'll go with those who have a good track record at predicting future climate. Dr Libby is the most impressive as her prediction is 30+ years going and still accurate.
That's what I told Demena.
Empty bluster won't stop me from continuing to debunk your civilization-paralyzing misinformation as long as I can.
Yes it was. And you're still spreading Dr. Latour's civilization-paralyzing Slayer misinformation:
No. Again, warming the heat source doesn't require net heat transfer from the plate to the source. At equilibrium, power in = power out. Because electrical heating power is constant, the heat source warms even if net "power out" decreases. It doesn't have to reverse direction (plate to source) in order to warm the source.
Maybe an analogy would help. Suppose water flows from a bathtub faucet at a rate of 1 liter/minute. The drain is open, letting water out at 1 liter/minute. Since water in = water out, the bathtub water level is constant.
Now partially close the drain so water only leaves at 0.5 liter/minute. Since water in > water out, the bathtub water level rises.
Raising the bathtub water level doesn't require that the drain reverse direction and start pumping water up from the drain into the bathtub. Because the faucet pours a constant 1 liter/minute into the tub, raising the water level only requires reducing the water out.
And there's no personal benefit to donating to charity. It's not like it will drop you into a lower tax bracket or something. Oh wait...
Bloomberg is another one of the liberal fanatics that does no9t understand the correlation between sunspots and the earth temperature through time. There is scientific evidence that cold periods on earth correlate to an absence of sunspots. But the do-gooders who want to destroy our economy and control our lives through the EPA, do not let facts get in the way of their quest for domination. "Dark Winter" by John L. Casey expresses the data far better than anyone I have seen.
Completely backwards, as usual. I've never observed any such ridiculous nonsense. That's actually Jane's ridiculous "observation" which I've already tried to correct:
"... Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium."
I've repeatedly said the electrical heating power is constant, and that adding an enclosing plate temporarily reduces power out until the heated plate warms to a higher equilibrium temperature.
Again, Eq. 1 describes equilibrium temperature:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
Eq. 1 shows that Jane and "the whole of Latour's argument" are wrong. Net heat transfer doesn't have to flow from plate to source in order to cause the heat source to be hotter. Just reducing the net heat flow from source to plate is sufficient to warm the plate, as long as electrical heating power is constant.
No. As I originally said: "Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation... Sage solves Eq. 1 for a constant electric input of 509 W/m^2."
So the variable "electricity" has always been in the same units as irradiance, which made the equations simpler. The electrical power used by the heater is "electricity" times the surface area of the heated plate. I've repeatedly noted that electrical heating power is constant, which means that the variable "electricity" is also constant unless the heated plate shape-shifts to change its surface area. Just to be clear, I haven't been considering shapeshifting plates.
Again, it's fascinating that Jane keeps wrongly implying my previous calculations had units confused, but didn't point out the actual units confusion in the eq. 4 I posted.
the important thing is that 'mitigation' doesn't turn into mega corporations taking control of the new, next-level artificial climate 'service' ? Excellent!!.....feeling sick already..
Typo: Just reducing the net heat flow from source to plate is sufficient to warm the source...
I said this years ago -- the change is effectively irreversible and we should accept it and deal with it. See my essay "On Climate Change vs. the Singularity".
http://groups.google.com/group...
CO2 pollution and related climate change is an externality of centuries of human industrial development and fossil fuel burning, as well as likely poor farming practices leading to topsoil loss (a major carbon reservoir), and also livestock production. As a consequence, many people in low lying areas will be flooded, and others will have bad weather and lose harvests, (negative externalities) while some others will get warmer or wetter weather and have bigger harvests (positive externality). Essentially, global climate change is just a bigger example of, say, a valley being flooded to make a hydroelectric dam. Who pays the costs and who gets the benefits?
We could tax fossil fuel use and topsoil loss and livestock production to discourage it and redistribute that tax as a global basic income. But that is not enough because past advantages are not evenly distributed globally. So, we could tax capital as well (including patents and copyrights) and also distribute that as a global basic income to make up for such losses. Then people who are negatively affected by climate change will at least be able to afford to move elsewhere. In general, we could also look at the specific winners and losers of climate change and also look at taxing and redistributing to just those people, but that seems harder to figure out.
Of course, all this is easier said than done without a world government -- and that has its own problems. I can hope that we transition globally to a post-scarcity society in the next few decades (including dirt-cheap solar, hot and cold fusion energy, widespread productive robotics and AI) and many of these issues become uninteresting or trivial to resolve given global abundance. Of course, abundance and such a AI/robotics singularity also poses its own problems. And those issues related to an economic, political, and/or evolutionary singularity in the next few decades may well be more important to think about and plan for than a, by comparison, relatively simpler problem of global climate change.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
I'm just not going to take it very seriously if it's yet another "adjusted" dataset from NOAA. There are too many demonstrated problems with their "adjustments".
When you look at the evidence (if you are willing to look at the data at all)
I'm just not going to take it very seriously if it's yet another "adjusted" dataset from NOAA
Ha ha ha ha! Nailed it didn't I! Tell me more about your 911 truther or birther theories!
You nailed nothing. I am not a "birther", or other kind of conspiracy nut. The problems with NOAA temperature adjustments (like TOBS for just one example) are well documented. No conspiracy necessary. Just incompetence.
Well documented at the conspiracy sites you visit? Certainly not in the scientific literature.
Certainly not in the scientific literature.
Actually, yes it is. This first example isn't NOAA, it is just for illustration, because it was a handy but excellent example of the same kind of shenanigans. (Note, I'm not claiming "conspiracy" here but incompetence and certain other circumstances can lead to the same net result.) The data is from official sources, the same datasets that scientists use, as is the progressive "adjustment" of same. The historical (official) record is quite clear. The linked story is not itself "the scientific literature", of course, but the official historical temperature data IS.
Now go look at NOAA and GISS explanations of their TOBS "adjustments" for just one more example, and compare them against analyses of the actual historical temperature records (which are, in fact, the very basis of much of the "scientific literature" ). It's not just there, it's all over the place for anyone who bothers to look. Not that I expect you to. You appear to want people to not look, by calling anyone who dares to question authority a nutcase conspiracy theorist.
Nice try, but it won't work.
Again, start with power in = power out through a boundary with surface area "A". Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation because we can divide both sides by "A" to obtain irradiance in = irradiance out.
Again, as long as the enclosing shell is nearly the same size as the heated plate, those areas are nearly irrelevant. And because it's a simpler problem (like a tricycle) one should master it before trying to ride a bicycle with complicated view factors. I already specified my areas. Again, neglecting area ratios predicts that the heated plate warms from 150F to 235F after it's enclosed. Accounting for area ratios similar to Earth's predicts that the heated plate warms from 150F to 233.8F.
So the tricycle isn't too inaccurate compared to the bicycle, it's much easier to learn, and it provides a sanity check on the more complicated calculation. As the area ratio approaches "1.0" the bicycle should give the same answer as the simpler tricycle. And it does.
Incidentally, that tricycle is much more accurate than Jane's prediction that the heated plate remains at 150F even after it's enclosed.
No. A spherical heated plate with a fully-enclosing shell has spherical symmetry, so the heated and enclosing plate temperatures are constant across their surfaces. That's why the equilibrium temperature solutions are just simple numbers.
However, if the passive plate doesn't fully enclose the heated plate then the heated and enclosing plate temperatures would be complicated functions of spherical coordinates theta and phi. That's a unicycle, not a tricycle.
Correction: However, if the passive plate doesn't fully enclose the heated plate then the heated and passive plate temperatures...
The moisture source for lakes and rivers is -- inevitably -- precipitation over lands upstream. Either as direct runoff, or as recurring eruptions from underground aquifers. If the prevailing winds don't bring the more humid air over the cooler, higher landscape, sure, you'll see drought. But you'd see it anyway, more heat or not. When the prevailing winds are bringing more moisture over those same types of terrain, you're going to see more precipitation, not less.
The historical record bears this out. When the earth is warmer, we get (a lot) more plant growth. That's simply not going to happen if the precipitation is reduced for any reason. And, at least as far as I am aware at this time, there is no mechanism that would cause reduction in precipitation. Warmer air holds more moisture, yes, and that effect is in full view in the tropics -- with deluge level rainfall when that moist air hits colder atmosphere and the moisture inevitably precipitates as rain. 400 inches / year as opposed to about 100 inches / year in otherwise similar temperate regions.
I would certainly agree that if the wind patterns change, then the rainfall will too. In both directions. But it seems a little farfetched to say that such changes will result in a consistent decrease in winds traveling onshore. What would such a claim be based upon?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So your theory is that time of day affects the temperature 2000 meters below sea level? You is crazy. You feed your brain with garbage and literally believe every conspiracy theory from 911 trutherism to birther theories about Obama. There is literally no evidence that would dissuade you from any of your pet conspiracies. (and by literally I don't mean figuratively). Why do conversations with deniers always end up with crazy?
Out of curiosity... Lewendowsky published a paper showing that conspiracy theorists are more likely to reject science. You seem to be a paragon for this theory. I'd like to know - what do you think of it?
I pretty much ignore all that political bullshit about who's funding what. I care mostly about the science. I have yet to find any reason to think there will be a major overturning of the primary points of current climate theory. There are a lot of details still to be nailed down but that increasing CO2 will cause the climate to warm and the cause of increasing CO2 is primarily human in origin is not in question.
Don't be an ass. That isn't what I said. I was explaining why NOAA's datasets are not trustworthy. No more, no less.
On second thought, based on recent experience, I won't tell you to not be an ass anymore, because if you did you'd disappear.
Being a realist, I know the system is so far gone with corruption (which heavily leveraged capitalism) that the democracy has been functionally dead for decades and despotism is the destination. Despotism is inevitable, as Franklin predicted but the end times for this democracy are upon us.
Finding compatible solutions with you believers in the faith is not really worth it; the few sane conservatives who are not blinded with emotion have no influence over their mob of dolts goosestepping us into dystopia. Sure there are "left wing" bad outcomes but that is not anywhere near today; or possible in my lifetime.
The fanatics of today won't allow actual capitalism, they are too easily sold on economic anarchy by the powerful who only like whatever gives them power/wealth-- capitalism can get them to the top so they like it, but once they have power they hate capitalism and undermine it. The whole situation today is painfully ironic. You can try to educate those who will listen to you into reasonable positions or you can join the other side so that their lost positions and compromises steer more towards your ends.
Problem with many of the market solutions I've heard so far is they involve way too much trust in a market system which has already run a muck. Carbon trading was the most naive thing I couldn't believe how many fell for it. (even those who were willing to accept the known flaws... it only really worked if you made everybody join the market and most played reasonably fair... at which point you may as well tax and/or regulate because that would be probably be easier.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Right, You read it on a conspiracy theory page that you mistook for scientific literature. Anyhoodle. You must have some thoughts on Lewendowsky? I feel like you could have written that paper.
Right, you're just making shit up now and attributing it to me.
That's called "lying".
Let's be clear:
You have made it abundantly clear that your interest here is to try to make me look bad. You can pretend you are having an "argument" all you like, but an objective observer can (has, actually) easily see that it is not so.
I have no reason to participate in your game and give you the satisfaction, regardless of the fact that (past evidence shows, and that's another truth) you would lose anyway. I have better things to do with my time.
To put it another way: this isn't worth my time. I will not respond further.
Which part is made up? You referenced a web blog and said that it was scientific literature. The birther and truther quotes are all cited. You are a conspiracy theorist and you do reject the science. So what was made up and why would you have any problem with the Lewendowsky study linking conspiracy ideation to science denial?
I concede that no one could win an argument with you. You reject all data that shows you are wrong. What would be the point in 'arguing' with a person who is not rational?
Once again, solving a problem without spherical symmetry means you'll have to solve for equilibrium temperatures which aren't constant across the heated and passive plates. Those equilibrium temperatures wouldn't be simple numbers. They'd be complicated functions that would vary across the plate surfaces. Contrast that with a spherically symmetric enclosing plate, where equilibrium temperatures are just simple numbers.
Are you disputing those facts, or do you really not see which of these problems is more complicated?
I already solved the problem for graybodies, and showed that the graybody equation reduces to the blackbody equation. That's why it's useful to solve the simpler blackbody problem first, to provide a sanity check on the more complicated solution.
I've never claimed that, but this is the second time you've tried to pretend I have. Once again:
No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F.
Once again, solving a problem without spherical symmetry means you'll have to solve for equilibrium temperatures which aren't constant across the heated and passive plates. Those equilibrium temperatures wouldn't be simple numbers. They'd be complicated functions that would vary across the plate surfaces. Contrast that with a spherically symmetric enclosing plate, where equilibrium temperatures are just simple numbers.
Are you disputing those facts, or do you really not see which of these problems is more complicated?
I already solved the problem for graybodies, and showed that the graybody equation reduces to the blackbody equation. That's why it's useful to solve the simpler blackbody problem first, to provide a sanity check on the more complicated solution.
I've never claimed that, but this is the second time you've tried to pretend I have. Once again:
No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F.
Jane, you just quoted me saying that "its outer temperature is 149.6F ... let's pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F"
Don't you see how my quote shows you were wrong to twice pretend that I'd claimed otherwise?
Again, I already showed you that MIT's equation reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies, and is consistent with these equations and Eq. 1 in Goodman 1957. I've stressed that this thought experiment has been tested for decades in the real world. Radiation shields allow for more accurate measurements of gas temperatures using thermocouples:
"The greatest problem with measuring gas temperatures is combatting radiation loss. ... surround the probe with a radiation shield ... The thermocouple bead radiates to the shield which is much hotter than the surrounding walls. Thus the radiative loss and hence temperature error is significantly reduced. The shield itself radiates to the walls."
These radiation shields have been used since at least Daniels 1968 (PDF), and they work like Dr. Spencer's insulating plate. They slow radiative heat loss from the hotter thermocouple. If Jane and Dr. Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer misinformation is correct, why have accurate thermocouples used radiation shields since at least 1968? Isn't that an example of a "real world" situation that's ultimately what we're talking about?
After twice pretending that I'd claimed the inner temperature wasn't equal to its outer temperature of 149.6F... now you make that incorrect claim yourself? Bizarrely, I have to point out that a thermal superconductor enclosing shell will have an inner temperature equal to its outer temperature, exactly as I originally said.
This reminds me of your other similar mistake that you haven't acknowledged:
Completely backwards, as usual. I've never observed any such ridiculous nonsense. That's actually Jane's ridiculous "observation" which I've already tried to correct:
"... Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium."
I've repeat
Remember that the inner surface of the enclosing shell is different than the surface of the heated plate. The inner and outer surfaces of the enclosing shell are at exactly the same temperature because it's a thermal superconductor. That's what I've always been saying, despite your attempts to pretend otherwise.
The surface of the heated plate at equilibrium, however, is warmer than the inner surface of the enclosing shell. It has to be.
I've repeatedly linked to that excellent example. Despite your incoherent protests, it's a relevant example where a passive plate reduces radiative heat loss from a warmer source, warming it to a higher equilibrium temperature. It's a real world example which shows Jane and the Sky Dragon Slayers are wrong.
Don't you see the irony here? I've repeatedly done the calculations "start-to-finish" by deriving and solving equations describing the final equilibrium temperature of the enclosed plate using increasingly realistic scenarios. I've repeatedly told you that you'd only be able to understand this thought
Superconductors are distinguished from aluminum by internal properties, not radiative surface properties. That's because conduction happens inside materials, whereas radiation is emitted and absorbed on surfaces.
No. As I've explained, emissivity = 1 and absorptivity = 1 is the definition of a blackbody. A completely transparent material would have transmittance = 1 and absorptivity = 0. Blackbodies can't be transparent.
I've already solved this problem with an aluminum enclosing shell rather than a thermal superconductor shell. Both shells warm the heated plate to ~233.8F.
Dr. Spencer's original challenge included the possibility of a fully-enclosing passive plate. And so did Dr. Latour. Note that Dr. Latour never specifies the dimensions of the plates (as Jane began to) before wrongly concluding that T remains 150. This means his incorrect conclusion must apply to all geometries, including a fully-enclosing passive plate. In fact, notice that Dr. Latour explicitly allows for K = 1 and k = 1, which describes a fully-enclosing blackbody passive plate.
So Dr. Latour wrongly claimed that a fully-enclosing passive plate wouldn't warm the heated plate. I've shown that his claim violates conservation of energy. As long as the shell is warmer than the chamber walls (which it is), the net radiative heat loss from the heated plate is reduced. So power in > power out, which means the heated plate either warms or energy isn't conserved. Just like how a bath
Every country is socialist to one extent our another or another. The world isn't black and white. I just wish people who believed in socialism stopped scapegoating capitalism to prove their point or found excuses like fake man-made global warming.
If only the damage to the hoax of anthropomorphic climate change was irreversible so people would stop believing in such nonsense....
Socialism, by definition, is where the government owns the means of production. This isn't even partially the case almost anywhere any more, unless you really stretch the meaning of ownership. I may be exaggerating somewhat; there may still be state-owned companies here and there. But, really, socialism barely exists today.
We might be talking past each other. What you're calling the "source" is what I've been calling the "heated plate" with temperature "T_h" in all my equations. I've called the other enclosing plate the "cold plate" with temperature "T_c". As I've repeatedly and consistently stressed, "T_c" is only identical on both sides of the enclosing cold plate if it's a thermal superconductor.
I'm sorry for any confusion this caused, but as you can tell I really am talking about the experiment Dr. Spencer mentioned. We're just using different words, and again I'm sorry for not noticing this miscommunication earlier. I take full responsibility.
We'll have to agree to disagree about thermal superconductors. I'm sorry for trying to simplify the problem in a way that ultimately just caused us to waste so much time. Again, I take full responsibility.
But again, I've already solved this problem with an aluminum enclosing shell, and it also warms the heated plate (aka Jane's "source") to ~233.8F.
That was Dr. Spencer's original challenge. He included the possibility of a fully-enclosing passive plate. And so did Dr. Latour's treatment of it. If you don't agree, please show where Dr. Latour specifies the dimensions of the plates before wrongly concluding that T remains 150. Also, why did Dr. Latour explicitly allow for K = 1 and k = 1, which describes a fully-enclosing blackbody passive plate?
Dr. Latour really did wrongly claim that a fully-enclosing passive plate wouldn't warm the heated plate (aka Jane's "source"). I've shown that his claim violates conservation of energy. As long as the shell is warmer than the chamber walls (which it is), the net radiative heat loss from the heated plate (aka Jane's "source") is reduced. So power in > power out, which means the heated plate either warms or energy isn't conserved. Just like how a bathtub fills up.
"Stop prevaricating"? Really? I've showed that Dr. Latour was wrong because his claim violates conservation of energy. Again, in physics that's a really big mistake.
Since you just linked to this
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree about thermal superconductors. That's why I've repeatedly pointed out that I've already solved this problem with an aluminum enclosing shell, and it also warms the heated plate (aka Jane's "source") to ~233.8F.
No, it's exactly the same problem. The same infinite sum of absorption and reflection. The plates are only "infinite" to avoid having to model fringing field effects around the plate edges. And note that Dr. Latour doesn't model edge effects either, so his plates are either infinite or the passive plate completely encloses the "source". Either way, there would be no edges.
Notice that the first example MIT applies their final equation to is a thermos bottle where the inside wall is heated by hot fluid.
Again, Dr. Spencer's actual, original experiment included the possibility of a fully-enclosing passive plate. And so did Dr. Latour's treatment of it. If you don't agree, please show where Dr. Latour specifies the dimensions of the plates before wrongly concluding that T remains 150.
In fact, as far as I can tell nobody's specified the plate dimensions except for me. Since the argument I'm refuting never specified the plate dimensions, why would the plate dimensions matter?
Okay, then we disagree. It's always helpful to solve simpler problems before moving on to more complex problems. The simpler problem is easier to learn, and often serves as a sanity check on the more complex problem.
Again, Latour's calculations allowed for K = 1: "K is the fraction of radiation from the first bar absorbed by the second colder bar, 0 < K <=1."
The only way K = 1 is if the cold plate completely encloses the first heated source. Otherwise, radiation from the side of the source opposite the cold plate couldn't possibly be absorbed by the cold plate, which would force K < 1. So once again, the fact that Dr. Latour included the possibility that K = 1 means that his claim applies to all geometries.
If not, why doesn't he deal with edge effects? The only ways to eliminate edge effects are if the plates are infinite, or if the cold plate completely encloses the heated source.
Again, I don't have enough time to program a finite element model to account for the fact that a non-fully-enclosing plate would cause plate temperatures to vary across their surfaces. But even if I did, the first thing I'd do after debugging it would be to check the finite element solution in a case where a simple analytic solution can be obtained. Namely, a fully-enclosing passive plate, where the plate temperatures are simple numbers.
By the way, since you keep insisting that only a particular geometry could refute Dr. Latour's treatment, could you please show where he specified the dimensions of the plates? Or where Dr. Spencer did? Otherwise, even if I had enough time to do so, how could I possibly program this complicated finite element model with the specific geometry that would finally convince you the Slayers are wrong?
Latour's answer is ridiculous Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense which violates conservation of energy, as I've shown.
Once again, solving a problem without spherical symmetry means you'll have to solve for equilibrium temperatures which aren't constant across the heated and passive plates. Those equilibrium temperatures wouldn't be simple numbers. They'd be complicated functions that would vary across the plate surfaces. Contrast that with a spherically symmetric enclosing plate, where equilibrium temperatures are just simple numbers.
Are you disputing that equilibrium temperatures for a non-enclosing plate would vary across the plate surfaces rather than being simple numbers like with a spherically symmetric fully enclosing plate?
Because, unless you dispute the above facts, that would require a complicated finite element model due to its lack of spherical symmetry. I simply don't have that much time left. And again, we'd have to test that complicated model in a case where an analytic solution is available anyway...
Maybe I should explain what I meant by saying that equilibrium temperatures for a non-enclosing plate would vary across the plate surfaces. Consider Dr. Spencer's first illustration. Presumably the heated plate at "150F" has finite conductivity, so its lack of spherical symmetry means that its corners will be cooler than the plate's side's midpoints. That's because the corners are closer to the cold chamber walls than those midpoints.
An integral over the heated plate's surface might average to "150F" but (unlike a spherically symmetric plate) it can't have that temperature everywhere as long as it has finite conductivity. But at least the single heated plate has bilateral symmetry; the left and right hand side midpoints have the same temperature.
Adding a cool plate removes even that bilateral symmetry. The left hand side's midpoint warms the least because it's still radiating to the 0F chamber walls. The right hand side's midpoint warms the most because it's now radiating to the (initially) 100F cold plate.
Since enclosing a spherically symmetric plate warms it from 150F to ~233.8F for area ratios similar to Earth's, the right hand side's midpoint won't warm past ~233.8F. But it has to warm to conserve energy because at equilibrium power in = power out.
I can't be more specific without programming a finite element model. But Dr. Latour never even allowed for the heated plate's temperature to be different on each side. As long as we're only considering materials with finite conductivity, this would only be possible for a spherically symmetric enclosing plate.
Dr. Latour's answer wasn't "reasonably precise". He claimed that the heated plate wouldn't warm at all when the cold plate was added, even if it completely enclosed the heated plate such that K = 1. This is a specific prediction of "0.0000...F" warming. Since energy conservation means that adding a cold plate has to warm the heated plate, he's only off by a factor of infinity.
No, the PSI Sky Dragon Slayers told you it's the engineering textbook answer. I showed you MIT's final expression which reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies, and is consistent with these equations and Eq. 1 in Goodman 1957. Physicists and engineers have been using thermodynamics for decades in the real world that contradicts Dr. Latour's Slayer nonsense.
That's why Jane, Dr. Latour and the rest of the Slayers disagree with the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society.
I never said the problem is intractable. Just that it's more complicated than the spherically symmetric problem. Again, do you dispute that equilibrium temperatures for a non-enclosing plate would vary across the plate surfaces rather than being simple numbers like with a spherically symmetric fully enclosing plate?
Maybe I should explain that. Consider Dr. Spencer's first illustration. Presumably the heated plate at "150F" has finite conductivity, so its lack of spherical symmetry means that its corners will be cooler than the plate's side's midpoints. That's because the corners are closer to the cold chamber walls than those midpoints.
An integral over the heated plate's surface might average to "150F" but (unlike a spherically symmetric plate) it can't have that temperature everywhere as long as it has finite conductivity. But at least the single heated plate has bilateral symmetry; the left and right hand side midpoints have the same temperature.
Adding a cool plate removes even that bilateral symmetry. The left hand side's midpoint warms the least because it's still radiating to the 0F chamber walls. The right hand side's midpoint warms the most because it's now radiating to the (initially) 100F cold plate.
Since enclosing a spherically symmetric plate warms it from 150F to ~233.8F for area ratios similar to Earth's, the right hand side's midpoint won't warm past ~233.8F. But it has to warm to conserve energy because at equilibrium power in = power out.
I can't be more specific without programming a finite element model. But Dr. Latour never even allowed for the heated plate's temperature to be different on each side. As long as we're only considering materials with finite conductivity, this would only be poss
I've already showed you that the outer surface of an enclosing shell with an area ratio similar to Earth's warms to ~149.6F. I've explained that neglecting area ratios is a tricycle: a simple approximation that helps us learn. It's like the "frictionless pulley" or "massless rope" or "blackbody" approximations. Again, in this case the tricycle isn't too inaccurate compared to the bicycle, it's much easier to learn, and it provides a sanity check on the more complicated calculation. As the area ratio approaches "1.0" the bicycle should give the same answer as the simpler tricycle. And it does.
When the area ratio departs far from 1.0, the tricycle becomes very inaccurate, so one should use the more complicated bicycle. But again, the Earth's area ratio is roughly 1.0025, so in that case the tricycle isn't too inaccurate.
Once again, I've already accounted for the area ratio to obtain the more complicated and more accurate solution.
Obviously we'll have to agree to disagree. But I thought you wanted to do some actual calculations? As you say, it's pretty damned hard to prove anything without calculating it all the way through. So why don't we take the first step?
Here's my Eq. 2 using your variable names:
net heat flow = sigma*(T(s)^4 - T(w)^4)/(1/E(s) + 1/E(w) - 1) (Eq. 2J)
Note that it reduces to my simpler blackbody Eq. 1 if E(s) = E(w) = 1.
If you'd like me to clarify what my variable names for a particular equation would be in your terminology, just ask.
I've specified the dimensions. The heated plate is a sphere with radius 6371 mm and surface area A_h. The enclosing plate is a 1 mm thick concentric shell with an inner radius of 6378 mm, surface area A_c1 on the inside, and A_c2 on the outside. The chamber is also a concentric sphere with inner radius 6386 mm, so there's a 7 mm gap on both sides of the enclosing shell. Again, the plates and walls are oxidized aluminum.
At equilibrium, net heat flow out (in W/m^2) equals "electricity". The first step is to calculate that constant variable "electricity" which describes electrical power per square meter heating the sphere to 150F without an enclosing shell. I calculated 29.4 W/m^2, which is less than with the simpler blackbody plates because aluminum isn't a perfect emitter or absorber.
Can we agree on that? If so, we can move on to the next step, which is calculating the final outer surface temperature of the enclosing shell once it reaches equilibrium.
#Calculate constant electrical power/area heating 1st plate.
var('sigma T_c T_h electricity epsilon_h epsilon_c')
eq1 = electricity == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1)
soln1 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=255.372,T_h=338.706,sigma=5.670373E-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11),electricity)
soln1[0].rhs().n()
ANSWER: 29.3986743761843
Can we agree on that? If so, we can move on to the next step, which is calculating the final outer surface temperature of the enclosing shell once it reaches equilibrium. I promise to provide public-readable versions of my Sage worksheet from now on.
HTML characters "& gt;" for "greater than" and "& lt;" for "less than" (without the spaces).
Again, the materials are oxidized aluminum with emissivity = 0.11 for these temperatures. As you said, the best we can realistically do is graybodies where emissivity = absorptivity. If you'd like to use a different emissivity just let me know, and we can both independently calculate the required electricity to check each other's answers.
#Calculate constant electrical power/area heating 1st plate.
var('sigma T_c T_h electricity epsilon_h epsilon_c')
eq1 = electricity == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1)
soln1 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=255.372,T_h=338.706,sigma=5.670373E-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11),electricity)
soln1[0].rhs().n()
ANSWER: 29.3986743761843
Can we agree on that? If so, we can move on to the next step, which is calculating the final outer surface temperature of the enclosing shell once it reaches equilibrium. I promise to provide public-readable versions of my Sage worksheet from now on.
You were right when you said the best we can realistically do is graybodies where emissivity = absorptivity. Otherwise we'd need to derive a new equation where heat transfer is an integral over wavelengths. In other words, we'd have to recreate MODTRAN. I simply don't have time for that.
I've never pointed that out. I've repeatedly shown you Goodman 1957 where Table 1 lists aluminum's emissivity as 0.113 from 100C to 300C.
In contrast, you're citing ESA figures from page 32 which are at 0K (-273C). But nothing in this experiment is anywhere near that cold.
Also note that Goodman 1957 specifically tests the gray body approximation and concludes that "Pure aluminum appears to act like a gray body when its radiating surfaces are at temperatures lower than 400C."
Again, if you'd like to use a different emissivity just let me know, and we can both independently calculate the required electricity to check each other's answers.
We might be talking past each other. What you're calling steady-state is what I'm calling equilibrium. Radiative thermodynamic equilibrium doesn't require all surfaces to be at the same temperature, it simply means that temperatures don't change with time. At radiative equilibrium, power in = power out, which also means irradiance in = irradiance out.
Those ESA absorptivities are for absorption of sunlight. Consider the first diagram here which shows that 6000K sunlight has much shorter wavelengths than the radiation from objects at the temperatures we're considering. In fact they hardly overlap. But the emissivities are for radiation emitted by much cooler objects. That's one reason why those ESA emissivities aren't equal to their absorptivities.
Here's a good explanation of this problem: "... white paint is quoted as having an absorptivity of 0.16, while having an emissivity of 0.93.[9] This is because the absorptivity is averaged with weighting for the solar spectrum, while the emissivity is weighted for the emission of the paint itself at normal ambient temperatures. ..."
Since the absorption values you indirectly cited are for absorption from the 6000K radiation from the Sun, that seems like a legitimate reason not to use those values in a thought experiment where nothing is at 6000K. Again, another reason is that we'd have to recreate MODTRAN to derive heat transfer between non-gray bodies where emissivity and absorptivity are arbitrary functions of wavelength.
And once we debugged that new MODTRAN clone, we'd have to test it in a simple case, like the case of gray bodies where emissivity and absorptivity don't depend on wavelength. So we might as well solve the simple problem first.
Once again, I never said that. In reality, I said that both sides of a thermal superconductor are at the same temperature. This was the source of much of the misunderstanding here, and you strongly objected to the notion of a thermal superconductor. Again, that's why I calculated the small temperature difference across an aluminum shell with finite conductivity.
That's also
Once again, no. I never said that all surfaces were at the same temperature. I've already explained that the final outer temperature of the enclosing shell doesn't happen at the same time as the initial temperature of the heated plate. Initially, the heated plate is at 150F and the enclosing shell is cooler than 100F. But because power in > power out, the plates slowly warm to a new steady-state. By the time the outer temperature of the enclosing shell is ~149.6F (accounting for area differences), the heated plate is ~233.8F. This doesn't change even if we neglect area differences: the enclosing shell and the heated plate are never at the same temperature. Again, that's why I called them T_c and T_h.
So once again, I never said that all surfaces were at the same temperature.
I'm very sorry. I take full responsibility. Can we please move on?
Once again, no. I never said that all surfaces were at the same temperature. I've already explained that the final outer temperature of the enclosing shell doesn't happen at the same time as the initial temperature of the heated plate.
I've been explaining for over a month that the heated plate warms after it's enclosed. I realize you don't agree, which is why I'm trying in vain to get you to finally perform a single, solitary calculation of your own. But even if you don't agree with my statement that the heated plate warms after it's enclosed, can't you at least acknowledge that this is what I'm saying rather than trying to pretend that I somehow said all temperatures are the same?
Once again, I never said that all surfaces were at the same temperature.
As I said: "Energy is conserved, which means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. At equilibrium, that rate is zero because the system doesn't change. So at equilibrium, power in = power out."
I explicitly said a system in "equilibrium" doesn't change, which Jane calls "steady-state". I repeatedly asked Jane if we could agree on that, but a month later Jane objected:
Note that my definition of equilibrium is identical to this one: "Class 6- Equilibrium Temperature: Equilibrium means no change with time. ... In equilibrium, we expect ENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT ..."
Also note that this definition of equilibrium doesn't require a planet's south pole to be at the same temperature as its equator, or its surface to be at the same temperature as its tropopause (for planets with an atmosphere).
But from now on I'll call the system in "steady state" when its temperatures don't change with time, in the naive hope that we might actually be able to finally take the very first step in this calculation.
No, I calculated this number for a system which doesn't change with time. From now on I'll call this condition "steady-state" but that doesn't change the fact that my equations are based on conservation of energy in a system that doesn't change with time. Again, I only mentioned Kirchhoff's law to explain MIT's gray body approximation. Since emissivity isn't a function of wavelength, all surfaces aren't required to be at the same temperature.
Notice that the first example MIT applies their final equation to is a thermos bottle which doesn't have infinite walls. That's because a thermos bottle has no edges (just like our fully enclosed plate!) so the infinite plate approximation applies. If not, why did MIT use their equation to model a thermos? Were they talking about a thermos with infinite walls?
No, Jane. If power in != power out in steady-state, that would violate conservation of energy. Because my equations are based on the principle that in steady-state power in = power, their solutions satisfy conservation of energy.
No. The radiative power output is exactly the same as before the heat source was enclosed. It's hotter because radiative power output is proportional to T_h^4 - T_c^4. Before the heat source was enclosed, it was radiating to the chamber walls at T_c = 0F. After it's enclosed, it's radiating to the inside surface of the enclosing plate which is at T_c > 0F.
But as you said, it's pretty damned hard to prove anything without calculating it all the way through. So let's finally take the very first s
I've been explaining for over a month that the heated plate (aka Jane's "source") warms after it's enclosed. I've only been wasting my final days because Jane's repeatedly disagreed by supporting Dr. Latour's ridiculous Sky Dragon Slayer claim that the heated plate (aka Jane's "source") simply remains at 150F after it's enclosed:
If Jane agrees that the heated plate (aka Jane's "source") warms after it's enclosed, then that's great news! In that case, we can all agree that the mainstream physics describing the greenhouse effect is accurate, obeys the laws of thermodynamics, and proves that the Sky Dragon Slayers are wrong.
Once again, no. I've repeatedly explained that the outer surface of the enclosing passive plate is never at the same temperature as the heat source.
Again, Jane might not agree with the fact that the heat source warms after it's enclosed. But again, Jane could at least acknowledge that this is what I'm saying rather than trying to pretend that I somehow said all temperatures are the same. Please?
I've repeatedly explained ad nauseum that neglecting area ratios is an approximation. I've already shown how tiny the effects are for Earth's area ratio. For weeks you've refused to perform even the simplest calculation to confirm this. Why don't we check to see wrong these approximations are, by actually doing some calculations? Finally? Please?
Cute. I've repeatedly explained ad nauseum that neglecting area ratios is an approximation. I've already shown how tiny the effects are for Earth's area ratio. Does this mean you don't intend to perform even the simplest calculation to confirm this? Why don't we check to see wrong these approximations are, by actually doing some calculations? Finally? Please?
#Calculate constant electrical power/area heating 1st plate.
var('sigma T_c T_h electricity epsilon_h epsilon_c')
eq1 = electricity == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1)
soln1 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=255.372,T_h=338.706,sigma=5.670373E-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11),electricity)
soln1[0].rhs().n()
ANSWER: 29.3986743761843
Can we agree on that? If so, we can move on to the next step, which is calculating the final outer surface temperature of the enclosing shell once it reaches Jane's "steady-state".
Then it should be easy to show how badly this approximation screws up the calculation, right? So why don't we check to see wrong these approximations are, by actually doing some calculations? Finally? Please?
#Calculate constant electrical power/area heating 1st plate.
var('sigma T_c T_h electricity epsilon_h epsilon_c')
eq1 = electricity == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1)
soln1 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=255.372,T_h=338.706,sigma=5.670373E-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11),electricity)
soln1[0].rhs().n()
ANSWER: 29.3986743761843
Can we agree on that? If so, we can move on to the next step, which is calculating the final outer surface temperature of the enclosing shell once it reaches Jane's "steady-state".
I already said yes.
Could we finally take the very first step in this calculation? Please?
#Calculate constant electrical power/area heating 1st plate.
var('sigma T_c T_h electricity epsilon_h epsilon_c')
eq1 = electricity == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1)
soln1 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=255.372,T_h=338.706,sigma=5.670373E-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11),electricity)
soln1[0].rhs().n()
ANSWER: 29.3986743761843
Can we agree on that? If so, we can move on to the next step, which is calculating the final outer surface temperature of the enclosing shell once it reaches Jane's "steady-state".
Let's finally move on. Could we finally take the very first step in this calculation? Please?
#Calculate constant electrical power/area heating 1st plate.
var('sigma T_c T_h electricity epsilon_h epsilon_c')
eq1 = electricity == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1)
soln1 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=255.372,T_h=338.706,sigma=5.670373E-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11),electricity)
soln1[0].rhs().n()
ANSWER: 29.3986743761843
Can we agree on that? If so, we can move on to the next step, which is calculating the final outer surface temperature of the enclosing shell once it reaches Jane's "steady-state".
I already said yes.
Could we finally take the very first step in this calculation? Please?
#Calculate constant electrical power/area heating 1st plate.
var('sigma T_c T_h electricity epsilon_h epsilon_c')
eq1 = electricity == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1)
soln1 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=255.372,T_h=338.706,sigma=5.670373E-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11),electricity)
soln1[0].rhs().n()
ANSWER: 29.3986743761843
Can we agree on that? If so, we can move on to the next step, which is calculating the final outer surface temperature of the enclosing shell once it reaches Jane's "steady-state".
Once again, I already said yes.
Could we finally take the very first step in this calculation? Please?
#Calculate constant electrical power/area heating 1st plate.
var('sigma T_c T_h electricity epsilon_h epsilon_c')
eq1 = electricity == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1)
soln1 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=255.372,T_h=338.706,sigma=5.670373E-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11),electricity)
soln1[0].rhs().n()
ANSWER: 29.3986743761843
Can we agree on that? If so, we can move on to the next step, which is calculating the final outer surface temperature of the enclosing shell once it reaches Jane's "steady-state".
Once again, energy is conserved, which means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. At steady-state, that rate is zero because the system doesn't change. So at steady-state, power in = power out.
I've specified the dimensions. The heated plate is a sphere with radius 6371 mm, surface area A_h, temperature T_h and emissivity epsilon_h. The enclosing plate is a 1 mm thick concentric shell with emissivity epsilon_c, an inner radius of 6378 mm, surface area A_c1 and temperature T_c1 on the inside, and A_c2 and T_c2 on the outside. The chamber walls at temperature T_c are a concentric sphere with inner radius 6386 mm, so there's a 7 mm gap on both sides of the enclosing shell. The plates and walls are oxidized aluminum, which are treated as gray bodies.
Since the enclosing shell has no edges and has nearly the same area as the heated plate, MIT's infinite plate approximation describes net heat flow (in W/m^2):
net heat flow = sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1) (Eq. 2)
At steady-state, net heat flow (in W/m^2) equals the electrical input. Note that MIT's Eq. 2 reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies where epsilon_h = epsilon_c = 1.
The plates and chamber walls are made of oxidized aluminum with emissivity = 0.11.
Here's my Eq. 2 using Jane's variable names:
net heat flow = sigma*(T(s)^4 - T(w)^4)/(1/E(s) + 1/E(w) - 1) (Eq. 2J)
Note that it reduces to my simpler blackbody Eq. 1 if E(s) = E(w) = 1.
If you'd like me to clarify what my variable names for a particular equation would be in your terminology, just ask.
At steady-state, net heat flow out (in W/m^2) equals "electricity". The first step is to calculate that constant variable "electricity" which describes electrical power per square meter heating the sphere to 150F without an enclosing shell. I calculated 29.4 W/m^2, which is less than with the simpler blackbody plates because aluminum isn't a perfect emitter or absorber.
#Calculate constant electrical power/area heating 1st plate.
var('sigma T_c T_h electricity epsilon_h epsilon_c')
eq1 = electricity == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1)
soln1 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=255.372,T_h=338.706,sigma=5.670373E-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11),electricity)
soln1[0].rhs().n()
ANSWER: 29.3986743761843
Can we agree on that? If not, a month ago I said we could use Wikipedia’s equation which includes areas. After I mentioned view factors, Jane agreed that the relevant view factor is 1.0 or
You're wrong. I've repeatedly explained how to calculate the required electricity. Note that conservation of energy at steady-state demands that the temperature of the chamber walls be taken into account.
One way to see this is to consider how much power the electrical heater would need if the chamber walls were also at 150F. The correct answer is zero watts, because the heated plate wouldn't lose net heat to walls at the same temperature. But since your expression doesn't depend on the chamber wall temperature, you wouldn't be able to obtain the correct answer of zero in that case.
The required electrical power to keep the heated plate at 150F is completely independent of the chamber wall temperature? Really? Doesn't this seem a even little strange to you? You're claiming that we'd have to pump 41.886 * 10^3 W into the heated plate regardless of the chamber wall temperature? Even if the chamber wall temperature were also 150F? Why would we need to continually heat a plate that's at the same temperature as its surroundings? Where would that energy go?
Another way to see that you're wrong is to write down the incorrect equation you're describing. Here it is in your notation:
electricity = sigma*E(s)*T(s)^4
As I've stressed, it's helpful to compare complicated solutions to simpler ones. If we set E(s) = 1 then your equation should reduce to the simpler blackbody solution.
Once again, a blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T(w) = 255.4K) also radiate power in. The heated plate (Jane's "source") at 150F (T(s) = 338.7K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T(w)^4 = sigma*T(s)^4 (Eq. 1J)
Since Jane's proposed equation doesn't reduce to the simpler Eq. 1J for blackbodies where E(s) = 1, it's wrong.
Note that the equations I've shown here all reduce to the correct blackbody equation.
Just so we're clear, you calculated that a heated plate would need 82.12 W/m^2 to keep it at 150F, regardless of the chamber wall temperature?
Calculating the necessary electrical power to keep the heated plate (Jane's "source") at 150F requires calculating net radiative transfer. Despite Jane's claim, Jane didn't calculate net radiative power output. Jane actually just calculated the radiative power out from the heated plate. The net radiative power output which determines the necessary electricity is "power out - power in" so Jane's missing the same half of the equation that all Sky Dragon Slayers miss.
Jane plugged my net radiative power transfer into an equation describing only "power out". A nonsensical answer is expected, but Jane should also check his arithmetic: "4th root of ( (29.399) / ((6.24 * 10^-9 W/m^2) / K^4) ) = 4th root of 3749839743.59".
Instead, I got "4th root of 4711378205.13 = 261.99K = +11.91 degrees F."
I noticed Jane's arithmetic error because his more fundamental mistake is completely ignoring the power radiated in from the chamber walls, and reflections from those aluminum walls. So Jane's "dirt simple" calculation is only valid for blackbody chamber walls at 0K (-459.7F), rather than the 255.4K (0F) aluminum walls in this experiment.
Of course, that would only be possible after an infinite number of steps. But I calculated something similar out of whimsy last month: "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."
Because Jane is unintentionally treating the chamber walls as a 0K blackbody, my +13F CMBR prediction shouldn't have been much warmer than Jane's -14F prediction. The comparatively tiny 2.7K CMBR temperature didn't seem like it could cause my CMBR prediction to be ~27F warmer than Jane's 0K prediction. And it didn't. After Jane's arithmetic was corrected, my CMBR prediction is only ~1F warmer than Jane's 0K prediction.
But those whimsical scenarios are different from the actual experiment with aluminum chamber walls at 255.4K (0F).
Accounted for how? Where did Jane's calculation depend on the chamber wall temperature?
Once again, I calculated the electrical power/area necessary to keep the heated plate (Jane's "source") at 150F inside 0F chamber walls, and asked if we could agree. Jane calculated a different value, then asked "who is wrong and why?" Since I calculated the electrical power necessary to keep the heated plate (Jane's "source") at 150F inside 0F chamber walls, the only way Jane's calculation could show that someone was "wrong" is if we were calculating the same value.
So what electrical power is necessary to keep the heated plate (Jane's "source") at 150F inside 0F chamber walls? Once again, I got 29.4 W/m^2.
It's always best to agree on the equation before plugging values in. That way disagreements about the physics of the equation can be resolved before wasting time crunching numbers.
So instead of asking you what electrical power is necessary to keep the heated plate (Jane's "source") at 150F inside 0F chamber walls, I should've asked you to simply write down your equation which determines that electrical power based on the experiment configuration.
This would only require a 1 line answer. I've shown that I'm happy with your variable names, so feel free to use them.
Again, I've agreed that a heated plate (Jane's "source) surrounded by 0K blackbody walls would require 82 W/m^2 to stay at 150F. I agreed because the whimsical calculation of 13F I did last month with a heated plate surrounded by the 2.7K blackbody CMBR agreed with Jane's corrected "dirt simple" calculation of 11.91F.
I also agree because changing the chamber walls to a 0K blackbody in my equation yields 82 W/m^2.
So please continue.
Please continue.
I can't stand the suspense. What's Jane's next step? Everything Jane's said makes me think his next step will be to calculate the irradiance in.
net irradiance = irradiance out - irradiance in
net irradiance = sigma*E(s)*T(s)^4 - sigma*E(w)*T(w)^4 (Jane's equation?)
Before Jane plugs in T(w) = 255.4K (0F), could Jane very quickly just say if this is really Jane's equation for net irradiance? Please? I know Jane is a busy professional, so just a yes/no answer would help.
I've agreed that a heated plate (Jane's "source) surrounded by 0K blackbody walls would require electrical heating power per square meter of 82 W/m^2 to stay at 150F, and 26.5 W/m^2 to stay at 0F. That's because changing the chamber walls to a 0K blackbody in my equation yields those answers.
So please continue. The next step is to calculate the enclosing shell's final outer steady-state temperature. Then we account for the finite conductivity of the shell to obtain its final inner steady-state temperature. Finally we solve for Jane's "source" final steady-state temperature. Hopefully we can finish this today?
And the next step is...?
Finite conductivity is relevant because Jane's previously objected to thermal superconductors. But that doesn't apply to the next step, which is simply calculating the enclosing shell's final outer steady-state temperature once it's added.
So finite conductivity is relevant.
We need two constants to calculate the outer shell temperature. The chamber walls are held at 0F, which is one constant. The electrical power heating the source is another constant. At the original steady-state without the shell, the net radiative power leaving the source equals the constant electrical power heating the source. This constant power doesn't change even after the shell is inserted.
Given these two constants, we can solve for the enclosing shell's outer temperature once it reaches steady-state.
I've always been calculating heat transfer via radiation by using radiative transfer equations.
Again, the next step is calculating the enclosing shell's final outer steady-state temperature once it's added. Since I've already done this, would you like to me repeat my answer, or would you like to be brave and show your calculation?
Once it reaches steady-state, the enclosing shell radiates the same power out as the heated plate did before it was enclosed. But its area is 1.0025 times larger, so its outer temperature is 149.6F (338.5K) instead of 150.0F (338.7K):
A_h*T_h^4 = A_c2*T_c2^4 (Eq. 3)
Again, a more accurate answer can be obtained using Wikipedia's equation
#Calculate outer temperature of enclosing shell. var('sigma T_c T_h A_c A_h F_hc power epsilon_h epsilon_c') eq1 = power == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/((1-epsilon_h)/(epsilon_h*A_h) + 1/(A_h*F_hc) + (1-epsilon_c)/(epsilon_c*A_c)) soln2 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=255.372,sigma=5.670373E-8, epsilon_h=0.11, epsilon_c=0.11, F_hc=1, A_h=511.346241712453, A_c=512.469109758699,power=15028.4258648090),T_h) soln2[0].rhs().n() ANSWER: 338.629792627809
This is 149.9F, which shows that my simpler method of accounting for the area ratio underestimated the shell's outer steady-state temperature by ~0.3F.
(Fixed formatting.)
Once it reaches steady-state, the enclosing shell radiates the same power out as the heated plate did before it was enclosed. But its area is 1.0025 times larger, so its outer temperature is 149.6F (338.5K) instead of 150.0F (338.7K):
A_h*T_h^4 = A_c2*T_c2^4 (Eq. 3)
Again, a more accurate answer can be obtained using Wikipedia's equation
#Calculate outer temperature of enclosing shell.
var('sigma T_c T_h A_c A_h F_hc power epsilon_h epsilon_c')
eq1 = power == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/((1-epsilon_h)/(epsilon_h*A_h) + 1/(A_h*F_hc) + (1-epsilon_c)/(epsilon_c*A_c))
soln2 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=255.372,sigma=5.670373E-8, epsilon_h=0.11, epsilon_c=0.11, F_hc=1, A_h=511.346241712453, A_c=512.469109758699,power=15028.4258648090),T_h)
soln2[0].rhs().n()
ANSWER: 338.629792627809
This is 149.9F, which shows that my simpler method of accounting for the area ratio underestimated the shell's outer steady-state temperature by ~0.3F.
Now to calculate the enclosing shell's inner temperature. At steady-state, power in = power out through some boundary. This time, draw the boundary within the enclosing shell. Again, constant electrical power flows in. But all the other boundaries we drew were in vacuum, so heat transfer was by radiation. This time the boundary is inside aluminum, so heat transfer out is by thermal conduction.
electricity = k*(T_h - T_c)/x (Eq. 4)
The shell's thickness "x" is 1mm, and the thermal conductivity "k" of aluminum is 215 W/(m*K). We just found that:
Outer shell temperature: 338.629792627809 K (149.864 F).
So:
Inner shell temperature: 338.629929668632 K (149.864 F).
Of course, that's a flat plate approximation of heat conduction through a spherical shell, which is derived here. That more accurate equation yields:
#Calculate enclosing shell's inner temperature.
var('T_c T_h power k r_c1 r_c2')
eq2 = power == 4*pi*k*r_c1*r_c2*(T_h - T_c)/(r_c2 - r_c1)
soln3 = solve(eq2.subs(T_c=338.629792627809,power=15028.4258648090,k=215,r_c1=6.378,r_c2=6.379),T_h)
soln3[0].rhs().n()
Inner shell temperature: 338.629929346551 K (149.864 F).
Now for the final step. Calculate the steady-state temperature of the enclosed heated plate (Jane's "source").
I'm glad we agree that at the original steady-state without the shell, the net radiative power leaving the source equals the constant electrical power heating the source.
If we don't need to know how much constant electrical power (total, or the irradiance per square meter) heats the source, why did you take the time to calculate the net irradiance out?
I've repeatedly failed to explain that the power consumed by the refrigerator on the outside is irrelevant. So obviously we'll have to agree to disagree about that.
I've repeatedly agreed that a heated plate (Jane's "source) surrounded by 0K blackbody walls would require 82 W/m^2 to stay at 150F. Jane's agreed that at the original steady-state without the shell, the net radiative power leaving the source equals the constant electrical power heating the source.
That's why no electrical heating power would be necessary to keep a heated plate at 150F if the chamber walls were also at 150F.
Jane, the next step is to calculate the enclosing shell's final outer steady-state temperature once it's added. Did you get a different answer than me?
Energy is always conserved. A boundary drawn around a system that isn't changing always has power in = power out. Always. Because energy is always conserved.
Once again, I've repeatedly failed to explain that the power consumed by the refrigerator on the outside is irrelevant. So obviously we'll have to agree to disagree about that.
If it's an unnecessary complication, it should be easy to show the simpler method. If it's a potential source of error, please quantify that error by taking the next step: calculating the enclosing shell's final outer steady-state temperature once it's added. Did you get a different answer than me?
Maybe this will help. It seems like Jane might think I meant power in = electrical heating power, and power out = cooling power of the chamber walls.
If so, that's not what I meant, and I'm sorry for not being more clear. I take full responsibility.
Just to be clear, power in = power flowing into the boundary in question, and power in = power flowing out of that boundary.
In my opinion, solving thermodynamics problems is mostly about choosing the most informative boundaries, then calculating steady-state solutions by setting power in = power out through that boundary.
From the start, the largest boundary I drew was "just inside the chamber walls" so the chamber walls and the cooler have always been outside all the boundaries. That means any power used by the cooler is simply being moved from some point outside the boundary to another point which is also outside the boundary. Because that power never crosses the boundary, it's irrelevant.
ACK! SORRY! Just to be clear, power in = power flowing into the boundary in question, and power out = power flowing out of that boundary.
No. Once again, I said that power going in minus power going out equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. Once again, that rate is zero if the system doesn't change.
No. I've repeatedly told you that power in = power out demands that an unheated inner sphere will be at exactly the same temperature as the chamber walls.
Using what equation? A month ago I said we could use Wikipedia’s equation which includes areas, and later mentioned view factors. I've been using this equation to calculate the net heat transfer between the heated plate (Jane's "source") and the chamber walls.
If that's the equation Jane is thinking about using to take account of the view factor, Jane should ponder what happens in that equation when the two temperatures in that equation are equal. As I've repeatedly said, the net heat transfer goes to zero when the two temperatures are equal. Regardless of their areas.
It absolutely does translate directly into power in = power out at a boundary just inside the cavity surface when everything inside that boundary isn't changing. In that case, the rate at which energy changes inside the boundary equals zero, which means power in = power out.
No. Energy is always conserved. Always.
Once again, the next step is calculating the enclosing shell's final outer steady-state temperature once it's added. This should have only taken you a few minutes to calculate. Did you get a different answer than me?
I'm very sorry for not being more clear. I take full responsibility.
Anything else would violate conservation of energy. But we still have one more step before the net power transferred from the heat source to that enclosing plate becomes relevant.
Excellent. And can we also agree about the enclosing aluminum shell's final inner steady-state temperature?
Now to calculate the enclosing shell's inner temperature. At steady-state, power in = power out through some boundary. This time, draw the boundary within the enclosing shell. Again, constant electrical power flows in. But all the other boundaries we drew were in vacuum, so heat transfer was by radiation. This time the boundary is inside aluminum, so heat transfer out is by thermal conduction.
electricity = k*(T_h - T_c)/x (Eq. 4)
The shell's thickness "x" is 1mm, and the thermal conductivity "k" of aluminum is 215 W/(m*K). We just found that:
Outer shell temperature: 338.629792627809 K (149.864 F).
So:
Inner shell temperature: 338.629929668632 K (149.864 F).
Of course, that's a flat plate approximation of heat conduction through a spherical shell, which is derived here. That more accurate equation yields:
#Calculate enclosing shell's inner temperature.
var('T_c T_h power k r_c1 r_c2')
eq2 = power == 4*pi*k*r_c1*r_c2*(T_h - T_c)/(r_c2 - r_c1)
soln3 = solve(eq2.subs(T_c=338.629792627809,power=15028.4258648090,k=215,r_c1=6.378,r_c2=6.379),T_h)
soln3[0].rhs().n()
Inner shell temperature: 338.629929346551 K (149.864 F).
Now for the final step. Calculate the steady-state temperature of the enclosed heated plate (Jane's "source").
Can we agree that energy conservation means that power going in minus power going out through some boundary equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes?
This principle applies even for systems that are changing, and even for systems that aren't in radiative equilibrium.
Again, can we agree that energy conservation means that power going in minus power going out through some boundary equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes?
We could somewhat control the effects of global warming with a large array of satellites that unfolded large solar panels like big umbrellas to divert sunlight otherwise destined for Earth, controlled to keep the Earth within a desired temperature range.
I'm not saying it's practical at all, but it is within our means.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I'm glad you don't dispute the enclosing shell's inner temperature of ~149.9F, but we should agree on my assumption that energy is conserved before proceeding.
How could my wording be easily misinterpreted? Once again, this fundamental principle applies even for systems that are changing, and even for systems that aren't at radiative steady-state.
Again, can we agree that energy conservation means that power going in minus power going out through some boundary equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes?
Maybe an analogy would help. The rate at which water flows into a bathtub minus the water flowing out equals the rate at which water in the bathtub changes. No qualifications needed.
If we can't agree that energy conservation means that power going in minus power going out through some boundary equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes, could you please explain exactly why we can't agree on this?
Once again, this principle applies even for systems that are changing, and even for systems that aren't in radiative equilibrium. Again, that's why I disagree with your claim that:
Since you keep place qualifiers on energy conservation, your wording isn't equivalent to mine because my statement applies even for systems that aren't in radiative equilibrium.
Once again, can we agree that energy conservation means that power going in minus power going out through some boundary equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes? Even for systems that are changing? Even for systems that aren't in radiative equilibrium?
Really? Since when?
Since Jane's insisted that the system is not in radiative equilibrium, it's necessary to agree on a general principle that applies even for systems that aren't in radiative equilibrium. Then we can move on.
Your wording could easily be misinterpreted to mean a constant other than zero. Didn't you mean that net power through that boundary at radiative steady-state represents zero energy flow through that boundary? If not, our misunderstanding is much more fundamental than I first thought.
That's why I'm trying to see if we can agree on a general principle that applies even to systems that aren't in thermal equilibrium.
Since we've had to agree to disagree about the definition of the term "equilibrium" (whether radiative or thermal), it's necessary to agree on the fundamental principle of energy conservation using a simple statement that doesn't use the term "equilibrium" (of any kind).
Then our statements aren't equivalent, which means there's an innocent misunderstanding here. To help resolve this miscommunication, could we please agree on a general principle that applies to all systems, even if they're not in thermal or radiative equilibrium?
Once again, can we agree that energy conservation means that power going in minus power going out through some boundary equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes?
That's why I'm trying to see if we can agree on a general principle that applies even to systems that aren't in thermal equilibrium.
Since we've had to agree to disagree about the definition of the term "equilibrium" (whether radiative or thermal), it's necessary to agree on the fundamental principle of energy conservation using a simple statement that doesn't use the term "equilibrium" (of any kind).
Then our statements aren't equivalent, which means there's an innocent misunderstanding here. To help resolve this miscommunication, could we please agree on a general principle that applies to all systems, even if they're not in thermal or radiative equilibrium?
Once again, can we agree that energy conservation means that power going in minus power going out through some boundary equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes?
No. I'm saying that since we've had to agree to disagree about the definition of the term "equilibrium" (whether radiative or thermal), it's necessary to agree on the fundamental principle of energy conservation using a simple statement that doesn't use the term "equilibrium" (of any kind).
Once again, can we agree that energy conservation means that power going in minus power going out through some boundary equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes?
In order to explain what calculations I'm using, we have to first agree on the fundamental principle all my calculations are based on.
I'm glad we agree that power going in minus power going out through some boundary equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes.
Notice that this general principle applies to all systems, even if they're at different temperatures or out of (thermal/radiative) equilibrium.
Now suppose that nothing inside that boundary is changing with time. Since this includes the energy inside that boundary, the rate at which energy inside the boundary changes is zero. This means power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside that boundary is changing with time.
If we can agree so far, just say "yes" and ignore the rest of this comment. Then we can move on to the final step, which is calculating the enclosed source temperature.
If we can't agree, here's why we first need to agree that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside that boundary is changing with time.
How could it mislead? Why won't it work? As long as nothing inside the boundary is changing, a simple power in = power out view is always the right answer.
How is it doomed to fail? How could it give very misleading results? As long as nothing inside the boundary is changing, power in = power out is necessarily true.
No, energy is conserved even when the bodies aren't in thermal equilibrium. As long as nothing inside the boundary is changing, power in = power out.
N
Now that we've agreed on the inner shell temperature of ~149.9F, let's take the last step. Calculate the enclosed source temperature.
Draw a boundary just inside the inner surface of the enclosing shell. Because nothing in the boundary is changing with time, power in = power out. The same constant electrical power flows in as before the shell was added. Net radiative power flows out from the source to the enclosing shell's inner surface.
As before, that net radiative power is described by Wikipedia’s equation which accounts for areas and view factors.
#Completely surrounded by shell with finite conductivity.
var('sigma T_c T_h A_c A_h F_hc power epsilon_h epsilon_c')
eq1 = power == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/((1-epsilon_h)/(epsilon_h*A_h) + 1/(A_h*F_hc) + (1-epsilon_c)/(epsilon_c*A_c))
soln4 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=338.629929346551,power=15028.4258648090,sigma=5.670373e-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11, F_hc=1, A_h=510.064471909788, A_c=511.185932522526),T_h)
soln4[0].rhs().n()
The first line "var('sigma..." declares my variables.
The line "eq1 = power == sigma..." is my "power in = power out" equation using Wikipedia's equation for net radiative power.
The next line plugs in all the relevant variables and solves it for the enclosed source temperature T_h.
The last line displays the answer.
So I've described my method for calculating the enclosed source temperature from start to finish. Before I post that final answer, can we agree with my method? If not, could you please describe your method?
Now that we've agreed on the inner shell temperature of ~149.9F, let's take the last step. Calculate the enclosed source temperature.
Draw a boundary just inside the inner surface of the enclosing shell. Because nothing in the boundary is changing with time, power in = power out. The same constant electrical power flows in as before the shell was added. Net radiative power flows out from the source to the enclosing shell's inner surface.
As before, that net radiative power is described by Wikipedia’s equation which accounts for areas and view factors.
#Completely surrounded by shell with finite conductivity.
var('sigma T_c T_h A_c A_h F_hc power epsilon_h epsilon_c')
eq1 = power == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/((1-epsilon_h)/(epsilon_h*A_h) + 1/(A_h*F_hc) + (1-epsilon_c)/(epsilon_c*A_c))
soln4 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=338.629929346551,power=15028.4258648090,sigma=5.670373e-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11, F_hc=1, A_h=510.064471909788, A_c=511.185932522526),T_h)
soln4[0].rhs().n()
The first line "var('sigma..." declares my variables.
The line "eq1 = power == sigma..." is my "power in = power out" equation using Wikipedia's equation for net radiative power.
The next line plugs in all the relevant variables and solves it for the enclosed source temperature T_h.
The last line displays the answer.
Because you've seemed to disagree with my method. That's why I've described my method for calculating the enclosed source temperature from start to finish. Before I post that final answer, can we agree with my method? If not, could you please describe your method?
Once again, you've already seen my method. I just described my entire method start to finish once again because that's what you demanded:
I was worried that Jane was just trolling, and had no intention of ever acknowledging my method even if I described them from start-to-finish. Now that I've described my method from start-to-finish and Jane is pretending that he hasn't seen my method "in action" it seems like my worries came true.
Jane, if you won't do a single, solitary calculation of your own, could you at least please stop pretending that you haven't seen my method from start to finish? Here's my last step again:
Now that we've agreed on the inner shell temperature of ~149.9F, let's take the last step. Calculate the enclosed source temperature.
Draw a boundary just inside the inner surface of the enclosing shell. Because nothing in the boundary is changing with time, power in = power out. The same constant electrical power flows in as before the shell was added. Net radiative power flows out from the source to the enclosing shell's inner surface.
As before, that net radiative power is described by Wikipedia’s equation which accounts for areas and view factors.
#Completely surrounded by shell with finite conductivity.
var('sigma T_c T_h A_c A_h F_hc power epsilon_h epsilon_c')
eq1 = power == sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/((1-epsilon_h)/(epsilon_h*A_h) + 1/(A_h*F_hc) + (1-epsilon_c)/(epsilon_c*A_c))
soln4 = solve(eq1.subs(T_c=338.629929346551,power=15028.4258648090,sigma=5.670373e-8,epsilon_h=0.11,epsilon_c=0.11, F_hc=1, A_h=510.064471909788, A_c=511.185932522526),T_h)
soln4[0].rhs().n()
The first line "var('sigma..." declares my variables.
The line "eq1 = power == sigma..." is my "power in = power out" equation using Wikipedia's equation for net radiative power.
The next line plugs in
Once again, you've seen my method in action from start to finish. I've repeatedly asked if we can agree on that method before posting my final numerical answer. That's because I think you deserve a chance to show that you're capable of judging my method based on its physics, as opposed to reflexively objecting if my numerical answer contradicts the PSI Sky Dragon Slayers.
You've seen my method from start to finish. If you're capable of judging my method based on its physics, why won't you know if you agree with my method until you see my final numerical answer? For instance, suppose I told you that my final numerical answer agrees with the PSI Sky Dragon Slayers. Would that make you agree with my method's physics? In that case, would you really be agreeing with my method, or agreeing with the answer you want to hear?
If you won't know if you agree with my method until you see my final numerical answer, you're depriving yourself of this chance to demonstrate your intellectual integrity.
Alternatively, you could finally explain your own method of solving for the enclosed source temperature.
Since it's important to agree on the equations before plugging in values, all you have to do to describe your method is to state the equation you're using, and state the values you'll plug in. This would only take about five minutes. I know because that's what I did below.
Once again, I'm sorry. I take full responsibility. I've changed the formatting so that each value being plugged in is on its own line. Does that make it more readable? I've also added some comments to the code which might help you understand it:
Now that we've agreed on the inner shell temperature of ~149.9F, let's take the last step. Calculate the enclosed source temperature.
Draw a boundary just inside the inner surface of the enclosing shell. Because nothing in the boundary is changing with time, power in = power out. The same constant electrical power flows in as before the shell was added. Net radiative power flows out from the source to the enclosing shell's inner surface.
No, that's my entire point. I already described my physics. If you need to see my final numerical answer before you can judge my method, then you're not actually judging my method based on its physics.
Ironically, you actually are judging my method based on its physics, which is actually a step forward:
Once again, your equation is only for net radiative power (or net heat transfer) to a 0K blackbody. But I've obviously failed to explain net radiative power (or net heat transfer) between two gray surfaces, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
But this is good. You're actually judging my method based on its physics! I'm proud of you, Jane!
You seem to be asserting that Jane's equation should be used instead of Wikipedia's equation. Is that the case? If so, all you need to do to catch up is to list the values you'll plug into that equation, like I did. This would only take a few minutes. If you're confused and need help, just ask.
Once again, we'll obviously have to agree to disagree about the net heat transfer between two gray surfaces.
Again, you seem to be asserting that Jane's equation should be used instead of Wikipedia's equation. Is that the case? If so, all you need to do to catch up is to list the values you'll plug into that equation, like I did. This would only take a few minutes. If you're confused and need help, just ask.
And then:
We'll obviously have to agree to disagree that I explicitly used the equation for net radiative power, and linked to an equation described as: "The radiative heat transfer from one surface to another is equal to the radiation entering the first surface from the other, minus the radiation leaving the first surface."
We've agreed that net radiative power is power out minus power in through a boundary, but we'll obviously have to agree to disagree that Wikipedia's radiative heat transfer is "equal" to net radiative power.
Again, we'll obviously have to agree to disagree that I explicitly used the equation for net radiative power (or net heat transfer). If I hadn't, it might make sense for Jane to say "We already know what the equation for radiative power is: (epsilon)(sigma)T^4."
Again, we'll obviously have to agree to disagree that I explicitly used the equation for net radiative power (in Watts). If I hadn't, it might make sense for Jane to say we already know that equation is the equation for radiant emittance (in W/m^2).
Once again, if I had explicitly used the equation for net radiative power, Jane's equation would only be valid for net radiative power (or net heat transfer) to a 0K blackbody. But I've obviously failed to explain net radiative power (or net heat transfer) between two gray surfaces, so we'll have to agree to disagree once again.
No, Jane. I linked to Wikipedia's equation for radiative heat transfer, which is in Watts, not Joules. You can verify this by noticing the "dot" over the heat transfer "Q" on the left hand side of that equation. In physics-speak, a "dot" means a "time derivative" so that equation is in units of power (Watts). Or you could've checked the units on the right hand side, and verified that they're also in units of Watts, just like I said.
The final answer for the enclosed source at steady-state is 385.4 K (234.1 F). Anyone with a calculator could have verified this based on my comment yesterday.
Your claim that the source doesn't warm after the passive plate is added is wrong.
The final answer for the enclosed source at steady-state is 385.4 K (234.1 F). Anyone with a calculator could have verified this based on my comment yesterday.
The final answer for the enclosed source at steady-state is 385.4 K (234.1 F). Anyone with a calculator could have verified this based on
Yes, that summary is accurate enough.
After this thread is closed, this conversation can continue here.
The question is not if the global warming from CO2 could be bad. The real question is, if that would be worse than turning huge amounts of concentrated authority over to Control Freaks. With the resulting nuclear war that might destroy all life on earth!
I hope that we can find a solution that does not go to either extreme...
Jane's obligations include continuing to spread misinformation about ocean acidification even after I've repeatedly debunked him.
So I predict that Jane's answer won't include any equations that could be used to calculate the enclosed source temperature. Instead, he'll probably grace us with another lengthy, incoherent rant about "problems" in my analysis which are (as usual) too vague to be expressed in equations. In the extremely unlikely event that Jane musters up the courage and competence to actually write down an equation that could be used to calculate the enclosed source temperature, it will almost certainly violate conservation of energy.
As I said, in the unlikely event that you wrote down equations, they'd violate conservation of energy. Thermodynamic thinking like this leads one back to reality, not astray. Draw a boundary inside the inner surface of the enclosing shell at your steady-state values. Since nothing inside that boundary is changing, power in = power out. But that's completely impossible. Your solution violates conservation of energy, as predicted.
In all that time, did you ever consider drawing a boundary between the source and the enclosing shell at your proposed steady-state temperatures, then calculating power in = power out using the original constant electrical power you calculated before the source was enclosed?
But again, did you ever consider drawing a boundary between the source and the enclosing shell at your proposed steady-state temperatures, then calculating power in = power out using the original constant electrical power you calculated before the source was enclosed?
Jane agreed that the general principle is true that power in = power out through a boundary where nothing inside the boundary is changing. But now that this general principle contradicts Slayer dogma, Jane considers it a misapplication.
Jane might wonder why cooler power wasn't included in "power in = power out": because it just moves energy from one point outside the boundary to another point that's also outside the boundary. In the same way, energy moved from one point inside the boundary to another point that's also inside the boundary isn't included in the equation describing conservation of energy.
Ironically, power in = power out through all the boundaries I've constructed. That includes the boundary around my own "goddamned heat source". But that's not true for Jane's solution, because it violates conservation of energy.
The enclosed source temperature at steady state is known to be 338.71 K (150F)? No, absolutely not. The chamber wall temperature is constant at 0F, and the electrical power heating the source is constant. But the enclosed source temperature is only constant in Jane's PSI Sky Dragon Slayer bizarro world.
Jane assumed the source's final enclosed steady state temperature was exactly the same as before it was enclosed. Surprise, Jane found that the source didn't warm! As a result, he got nonsensical answers and had to invent a new energy conservation law where power adds to the energy inside a boundary even if it never crosses that boundary.
Good grief. How predictably ridiculous. All boundaries where nothing inside changes have power in = power out. Seriously. All of them. That's why I tried to convince you that this general principle is true, but obviously we'll have to agree to disagree.
Jane agreed that the general principle is true that power in = power out through a boundary where nothing inside the boundary is changing. But now that this general principle contradicts Slayer dogma, Jane considers it a misapplication.
Jane might wonder why cooler power wasn't included in "power in = power out": because it just moves energy from one point outside the boundary to another point that's also outside the boundary. In the same way, energy moved from one point inside the boundary to another point that's also inside the boundary isn't included in the equation describing conservation of energy.
Ironically, power in = power out through all the boundaries I've constructed. That includes the boundary around my own "goddamned heat source". But that's not true for Jane's solution, because it violates conservation of energy.
The enclosed source temperature at steady state is known to be 338.71 K (150F)? No, absolutely not. The chamber wall temperature is constant at 0F, and the electrical power heating the source is constant. But the enclosed source temperature is only constant in Jane's PSI Sky Dragon Slayer bizarro world.
Jane assumed the source's final enclosed steady state temperature was exactly the same as before it was enclosed. Surprise, Jane found that the source didn't warm! As a result, he got nonsensical answers and had to invent a new energy conservation law where power adds to the energy inside a boundary even if it never crosses that boundary.