"Yes.... but I belive that's more about HONORING What you advertise."
I agree. In some cases the law says you have to honor what you advertise. But even if it doesn't, it is obvious to see that one response pisses people off and loses customers, while the other can probably just be written off as an advertising expense. (I.e., all the "free" propaganda you end up getting on Twitter and Fecebook and the like.)
"To be fair the reason people stopped commenting on YouTube is more to do with the way the broke the threading and reply system. Comments no longer appear in the order they were posted, you can't easily see new ones and replying is a chore. Basically they made conversation impossible."
I agree that this is part of the reason. But I can say that in MY case, those changes pissed me off but didn't prevent me from commenting. However, now that it's all on Google+, with extremely rare exceptions I simply don't comment anymore.
The fact is that I have multiple Google+ accounts, and I used different accounts for different things. (So much or their "one size fits all" strategy... it never worked and never will.) I still don't want activity that isn't explicitly on Google+ to be tied to Google+. Period. They were already far too intrusive before but that is over the line.
"If you think that the problem is "a few negative comments", you haven't looked at the responses posted on any news sites lately. I won't even look at the comments sections on the web site of my local metropolitan newspaper, let alone post anything: they are a rancid stew of idiocy, bigotry, and partisan attacks."
So what? Their proposed "solutions" simply aren't.
They've made it a little more difficult to post anonymously, but so what? If they want to they will find a way to make anonymous (or pseudonymous) posts anyway. It's like DRM: it mostly hurts the good guys by inconveniencing them because someone else behaved badly. That's a terrible way to make your rules.
As for YouTube: people are simply not commenting anymore. Not that it matters. I have had a pseudonymous account on Google+ for years, just as I have here on Slashdot. I just don't like to use it because Google+ is little more than a data farm for Google and its advertisers. Just like I have some Facebook accounts, which I almost never use.
Newspapers always "moderated" their Letters to the Editor section, and the guest editorials they published. Now that they're online, they think they can do that without moderators? Why?
As that other poster mentioned: this is likely more about editorial control of speech than any kind of "protection" from trolls. These policies are driving people away. It's that simple. And then they wonder why they're making less money??? Astounding.
"Then our discussion is at an end, as you do not understand how science works."
This is the most hilarious thing you've written yet. This, from somebody who proposed a thought experiment with a "perfect insulator". Which makes absolutely no scientific sense... there is no way to calculate a temperature for a perfect insulator. At least a black body, while theoretical, is amenable to mathematical treatment.
"BUT HE NEVER DID THE TEST."
You're an idiot. The test is described starting on page 23. I have been wondering about your reading comprehension from the very beginning, and now you have confirmed my suspicions.
You have repeatedly moved the goalposts all over the map, even after I have repeatedly described the points I was making. Every time it looked like you were losing ground, you just shifted tack and argued about something else. (OR -- and this is even worse -- kept arguing about the same things even after I had repeatedly explained that they had nothing to do with my original arguments.)
I'm going to say this one more time, and them I'm going away, because it has proven completely pointless to argue with you. I repeat: either you just don't get it, or you're very seriously trolling. I have no idea which, but it MUST BE one of the two.
These are the arguments I made in the beginning, and which I am sticking to:
(1) As Postma explains in his web article, the greenhouse effect is NOT the same effect that heats actual greenhouses. The latter happens by solar warming of the interior, and the warmed air is prevented from escaping. The former is presumed to work via "trapping of radiation".
I did not and do not claim that his web article is "proof" of anything, which is a concept you seemed to have trouble getting through your head. I explained this repeatedly but you kept arguing with me about it anyway.
(2) The evidence that the "radiative forcing" greenhouse gas model violates known laws of physics (specifically, the Stefan-Boltmann law) is in the Latour paper I referenced. I didn't claim that Postma proved anything and his other paper you linked to has nothing to do with my argument.
YOU have kept arguing (for whatever reason):
(A) That Postma does not actually prove the assertion that he makes in his web article. But so what? My argument wasn't relying on any "proof" by Postma anyway. Even if you were correct [but you were not] that he didn't perform the test he claimed, it has no bearing on my original argument.
(B) You claim that Latour is incorrect, but you have shown no scientific basis for that claim. You have refuted none of his math, you have refuted none of his arguments. The one article you linked to as a "refutation" actually contains the same arguments that Latour's paper refuted. Further, that Hammer article makes "intuitive" arguments rather than any rigorous science or math.
As I stated before: you have shown no real basis for your arguments. When you have tried, you have simply been incorrect.
"There are many valid refutations for it, I even linked to one."
That's no "refutation" of Latour! As I already explained, Nova's comment about "some molecules" is a joke because the discussion is about the NET warming. And this guy Hammer's comment (again as I already explained, is no "refutation" of Latour at all! In fact it's a repetition of the very claims that Latour refuted in his article! There is no validity there whatsoever.
"The conclusions offered in Postma's web post are not supported by any evidence."
HOW MANY TIMES do you need this to be repeated before it sinks in??? The EVIDENCE is in the Latour paper. The web article by Postma was a "layman's explanation", and was not intended to provide actual evidence (much less "proof"). I have explained this to you already several times also.
"I have tried to explain to you instead the logical failings in that page. You have ignored or misrepresented my statements in an almost pathological manner."
You are so full of shit it's almost unbelievable. The evidence of the concept is in the Latour page. Your pretended "refutation" of Latour is nothing but repetitions of the arguments that Latour himself refuted. (I will ALSO point out that the "refutation" you linked to did not actually address Latour's own thermodynamic arguments... almost like that was being intentionally evaded.)
"As a last, desperate attempt to find some sign of reason in you, let's see if we can find even the most basic common ground. In the article, just before the results section, Postma finally defines the experiment he intends:"
If your "attempt to find common ground" is all about A LAYMAN'S EXPLANATION THAT IS PRETTY MUCH INCONSEQUENTIAL TO THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION, you have lost before you have begun. I explained this to you several times, as well. I have to wonder what the basis is for your failure to understand. I repeat that I don't think other readers will have this trouble understanding my repeated statements about this. (3 times now? 4?)
"Can you at least admit that in the experiment he did, he maybe, sorta, should have actually measured some temperatures inside a greenhouse?"
NO, you dimbulb, because as I have already explained to you in lurid detail, GREENHOUSES ARE NOT ACTUALLY PART OF HIS ARGUMENT. HE WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO EXPLAIN WHY THE EFFECT HE IS DISCUSSING IS NOT RELEVANT TO ACTUAL GREENHOUSES.
I have no further reason to respond to you. You have kept making the same non-arguments, even after these things have been explained to you several times.
I can only conclude that either (1) you have neither any idea what you are talking about OR the capacity to understand it, or (2) you are deliberately trolling just to piss everybody off.
"I did not elaborate further because, as I stated, I did not want to get into a semantic argument, because it does not materially affect my argument."
Which is nonsense, because that WHOLE ARGUMENT was a semantic argument, on YOUR part. I didn't want to get into one, either, and said so, but you kept making one anyway.
"What I say is that those people are incorrect."
Then why did you even bring it up? Because I, too, stated several times that they were different mechanisms. So what is the argument you're trying to make there? Your comments puzzle me.
"With regards to that exact quote you mentioned, it comes from Arrhenius's Worlds in the Making, and while I do not have the full text of the book with me perhaps some larger quotes would give you some perspective on his work"
Completely irrelevant to the part I quoted. I know what his work was about. The context of my comment was the history of the phrase "greenhouse effect", not what the body of Arrhenius' work entailed. Anybody can obtain background on that from Wikipedia. But for somebody who "doesn't want to get into an argument" over this, you sure are doing a lot of arguing.
"As you can see, as far back as your 1906 quote, "The Hothouse Effect" refers to heat rays, not convection."
No shit, Sherlock. There simply isn't (and wasn't) any argument on my part about that. THE ISSUE THAT WAS UNDER DISCUSSION (which you claim you don't want to argue about, even while you continue to argue about it) was that there is ANOTHER "greenhouse effect" (the one that heats greenhouses) that was already known, and already called that. And in fact the "radiative greenhouse effect" WAS NAMED AFTER THE OTHER ONE. That means there are TWO "greenhouse effects" known to science and history. Get it? Q.E.D. Two. Proved.
"I did not mention the second document because I had not at that time read it, because the first article was, as I say, absurd. No amount of other links will be able to redeem it because its problem is not maths or science (climate or otherwise). The problem is it is logically inconsistent in itself. To be blunt, IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE, as I explain in my earlier comment. As I stated:"
So you are claiming you don't want to read the scientific evidence for the claim, because the claim is ridiculous? There's a word for that. The word is "denial".
I very clearly told you, several times, that my evidence backing up Postma's article was in the Latour article. I don't care whether you want to look at it or not. But if you don't, you have no ground to argue from. "It doesn't make sense" (to YOU) is not a valid argument. If you want to read the scientific explanation, and you can refute THAT, then maybe I will be inclined to pay attention to your ranting.
"Regardless of the size of the greenhouse, the increased temperature (increased, that is, over the external temperature) will be due to trapped convection. The same CO2 density inside and outside the greenhouses means that the CO2 would increase the greenhouse temperature and the external temperature by the same amount."
Do you not understand that those two sentences contradict one another? In one you say that the increased temperature is due to trapped convection. In the other you say that some of it is due to radiative greenhouse effect.
Which is it? The funny thing is, even the first sentence is wrong, because in a greenhouse the heating is due to solar irradiance. That heat is then prevented from escaping by the greenhouse glass. Two different things.
Further, as I explained before: your second sentence is irrelevant to my statement because normal thermometers do not measure differences in temperature. They just measure temperature.
"There are two things called "The Greenhouse Effect" (false)"
It is NOT false, and I showed you a historical reference that proved it. You came up with some cockamamie theory (semantic nonsense argument) about why MAYBE it didn't mean what the plain English words very clearly do mean to any reasonable reader. No points.
"Therefore the actual greenhouse effect doesn't exist.(false)"
Show me any evidence that greenhouses are hotter than they were before (as they WOULD be, if what you say is true). If the effect is measurable, in tenths of degrees C, it should be measurable anywhere. The author claims to have done the experiment (though I have not seen the results with my own eyes... I will look for it), and I have no reason to doubt his claim. He is certainly qualified to perform such an experiment. Evidence, evidence, evidence. That's what it's all about. If you have evidence that the claim is false, show it. In the meantime, I will look for a writeup of his experiment.
"Postma attempts to jam in a different premise about "maximum solar heating". However, as I explained in my previous comment, no evidence is offered to support it. Additionally, as I have also explained twice, the extra PDF you linked to has nothing to do with the article."
There is more than one point here. In regard to the first one ("maximum solar heating"), perhaps you will remind me. I looked at your previous comments and did not find reference to it. Nor did I even find the word "maximum" in your prior comments.
As for the second point: ARE YOU DENSE? I am not accusing, I am just asking. I think this is the third time now I have explained this: the first Postma article is a "layman's explanation" about the difference between "real" greenhouse heating and the "greenhouse effect". (The one you mean... I'm not going to be drawn into a BS argument about the other thing.) THE EVIDENCE, as I have already told you more than once, is provided in the other article I linked you to. Contrary to your claim that they are unrelated, in fact the Latour article demonstrates why the "radiative" greenhouse effect is a violation of known physics. This is DIRECTLY related to the first article, and if you can't see how by now, I don't think I will be able to since I've explained it twice. Ah, heck. I'll try one more time. Should I use baby talk?
(1) Postma gives a layman's explanation about how the "greenhouse effect" does not work the way real greenhouses do. He explains that the "greenhouse effect" (the one you refer to) is based on the idea of trapping radiation, which is different from the way real greenhouses work.
(2) REMEMBER THE CONTEXT of my comment at the start of this thread. I stated that these articles refute the idea of "radiative forcing" from greenhouse gas. Postma states that there is no evidence of a measurable radiative effect in an actual greenhouse. (He might make some other claims but I'm not particularly interested in them here.)
(3) The Latour article is refuting the idea of "radiative forcing" of greenhouse gases. I already explained this connection. THERE IS CLEARLY A CONNECTION because both the first article (Postma) and the latter article (Latour) are refuting (just as I originally claimed) the idea of greenhouse radiative forcing.
Now, you can disagree all you want about how successful those refutations are, but unless you can actually REFUTE what they're saying, you don't have an argument and you're wasting my time. I have tried to be polite and explain all this civilly, but you're testing my patience.
"Even if this is a "layman's explanation", it is not a layman's explanation of the argument you are now making. I believe this brings the discussion to an end."
Holy crap! How dense can you be? AS I ALREADY EXPLAINED, the Postma article is not pretending to "prove" anything. It *IS* an explanation, though, exactl
Funny... YOU'RE the one who argued about the semantics. Now, you say there shouldn't be an argument about semantics, then you make another argument about the semantics. But I'm going drop this, because it seems to be falling on deaf ears and arguing the actual history seems pointless if nobody is going to pay attention.
"No, I am proposing that the CO2 would be aproximately the same inside and outside the greenhouse, so its effect would not be noticeable."
No, no, wait a minute. You don't get to do that. I am guessing that you are trying to say that the temperature inside and outside would go up by the same amount... but so what? A thermometer does not measure the temperature indoors compared to the temperature outdoors. It just measures temperature. In any case, this really isn't very important either.
" I am sorry it offended you so."
Nothing you wrote "offends" me. It just wasn't clear to me that you meant it as a joke.
If I may ask, why did you chose to link to the PDF document when there are (as you noted) many other HTML documents mirroring the original? Also please note that I did not "ask [you] about credibility". We are discussing these pages on content, only.
The answer to the first question is that I wanted to link to an original source, not a third-party source, and the actual original site is down. The pdf I linked to is supplied by the author himself.
I am happy to discuss content only. And pardon me if my tone has been a bit short. I've seen enough name-calling and ad-hominem over this issue to last me for yet another lifetime, and as a result I have grown a short temper. So let me try to calmly and politely clear up some possible misunderstandings:
"In any case, the original source page was up when I googled for it before I posted. As I stated, it had little to no relevence to the article you referenced. That is a report produced by the person who wrote the web article, linked to from the article. It seems to contain the conclusions listed in the "Results" section of the web article. In it is a very different experiment to the one listed on the website (that doesn't even involve measuring temperatures in a greenhouse at all!)"
That isn't the original source page. this is. But as I said, that website is down for repairs. And I understand that the relevance might not be obvious. I'm getting there.
But first, the pdf you linked to in the above comment was by the same author as the first article, which I am calling the "layman's explanation". Joe Postma is an astrophysicist. The author of the second article I linked to is Dr. Pierre Latour. Latour has spent much of his adult life designing control systems for heating and other thermodynamic processes in chemical plants, and for NASA. (Which really doesn't matter here, if we're discussing content, because the math speaks for itself. It doesn't care in the slightest who writes it down; either it is correct or it is not.)
But your article above, by Postma, and the one I linked, by Latour, are basically saying the same thing. And this is how they are related to the first article:
No, they do not mention greenhouses. In the first article, Postma was trying to describe, in layman's terms, the mechanism behind the (current popular use of the term) "greenhouse effect", and explain WHY it is NOT the effect that actually happens in greenhouses. Many people simply have not understood this. A real greenhouse is warm because it traps air that is already heated, preventing convective cooling. The "greenhouse effect" (again, the one you were referring to) supposedly works by trapping radiation. Two completely different, unrelated things. Again, the point is that he was explaining HOW they are different.
That is wh
Re: Ruby is a great language
on
Ruby 2.1.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"My scripts stop working and I have to fix everything, this is not userfriendly."
That's not a problem with Ruby, it's a problem with jruby.
"Documation is scattered and incomplete. It's something that needs to fixed if they want to get to version 4"
And if you want more documentation get your hands on the book "Programming Ruby" (often incorrectly called "the pickaxe book"), like everybody else does. It is frequently updated for the latest ruby versions. Since it's from Pragmatic Programmers, purchase once and get the (pdf) updates whenever they come out.
"Continuing her Scrooge-worthy tale, McCord adds that firing a once-valuable employee instead of finding another way for her to contribute yielded another aha! moment for Netflix: 'If we wanted only "A" players on our team, we had to be willing to let go of people whose skills no longer fit, no matter how valuable their contributions had once been.'"
Sounds like the epitome of short-term planning.
Congratulations, Netflix. Good (or not so) to know you. Really sorry to see you let it go to your head.
"I understand what the author was trying to say. I am saying his premise is entirely wrong."
And I understand what you are saying, and I (and he, and that other author I linked to) are saying that you are wrong.
"Firstly, there is only one definition of "The Greenhouse Effect", not two as claimed by the article. That is the greenhouse effect of global warming. The mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm is not called the greenhouse effect."
Yes, there are two. The effect claimed by the climate models was called the "greenhouse effect" because it was (erroneously) believed to be analogous to the mechanism that actually keeps greenhouses warm. They still claim that to this day. There isn't any mistake about calling them both "greenhouse effect". The mistake was in their faulty assumptions about what makes it work.
Arrhenius wrote about it in 1908:
"Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses."
So yes, that *IS*, just exactly, where the name came from.
"There is no attempt at sophistry, no double-meaning..."
Sophistry means "... a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning." I given what I have rad, I believe that is exactly what this is. The definition does not require it to be intentional. And even if it's not, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
"Trapped radiation (i.e. the greenhouse effect) would have minimal effect."
Correct. Thermodynamics says it would have zero effect.
But wait... the greenhouse contains increased CO2 just like the rest of the atmosphere has. Why do you claim it has no effect in a greenhouse, but has lots of effect outside a greenhouse? Are you proposing that the CO2 knows whether it is in a real greenhouse or not? Just asking because I don't get your logic here.
The thing is: one would think it would at least be measurable. But apparently there isn't any measurable effect. Even in very large greenhouses. Funny that.
As a footnote, that PDF (which appears to be a text paste of a website in order to move the contents up the trustworthyness scale [xkcd.com]) really doesn't apply to the contents of that page. Regardless, google the title of that document and you will find all the refutations you seek.
The XKCD "trustworthiness scale" is a cartoon joke. And you are asking ME about credibility?
I linked to a PDF because the website is temporarily down for repairs (you can see this clearly if you Google it, but one of the site authors explained the situation to me yesterday). You can still find it reprinted and quoted all over the place, or Google it when the site is back up. If that doesn't satisfy you, just go buy his book. Dr. Pierre Latour.
In the interest of fairness, I will correct myself. This is what I stated:
According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the surface of your sphere (which is what is primarily absorbing and re-radiating your input) will never exceed the radiative temperature of the input. I.e., at equilibrium there is no "flux" or net heat transfer (W/m^2 * s incoming = W/m^2 * s outgoing, net flux is zero) at that surface. There are only 2 other possibilities: the temperature would go up until it outshone the rest of the universe, or it would cool down to zero. But those things simply do not happen: there must be an equilibrium (conservation of energy). And at that equilibrium flux in = flux out = no net flux at all.
In the first sentence, please note that I wrote "radiative temperature" of your input. That is, the temperature that corresponds to the sum of your input. (I did not say that radiation = temperature, or that heat flux = temperature.)
I admit that at that point, I had not explicitly pointed out that I was discussing a black body; I had assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that my reference to Stefan-Boltzmann made that much clear. But I should have stated it explicitly and I apologize for any confusion.
So to repeat what I wrote elsewhere: for a black body in a vacuum, the surface temperature will never exceed a temperature corresponding to the sum of the radiative input. (This is not the same as saying temperature = radiation or temperature = flux). As I did mention elsewhere, this is not necessarily true of a non-black body (e.g., a "gray" body with emissivity
But even so: the Latour article explains, in some detail, why none of this has any relationship to a supposed warming due to an imagined "radiative forcing" that is assumed in the greenhouse gas models. The equilibrium temperatures mentioned above will be reached without regard to "radiative forcing" or regarding the atmosphere as "insulation".
The point that the kiddie's explanation in the other article was trying to make, is that simple known physical principles already explain the temperature of a greenhouse quite adequately. The imagined "radiative" greenhouse model, then, has zero effect and so can't be said to exist, other than in some climate scientists' minds.
"The whole article rests of the supposedly logical assumption that two different effects with the same name can't both exist because they operate differently."
NO, it doesn't. The concept the article rests on is that the "radiative" greenhouse doesn't exist because the other, real, greenhouse effect is already sufficient to explain the temperature. Therefore that other "effect" has an actual effect of zero. Which means it doesn't exist.
And I will repeat: that article is just an explanation of the concept for laymen. If you want the science behind the concept, read the other article I linked to.
No, I am not. "Temperature" is a measure of heat radiation. If you don't believe my sources, try Wikipedia:
When a path permeable only to heat is open between two bodies, energy always transfers spontaneously as heat from a hotter body to a colder one. The transfer rate depends on the thermal conductivity of the path or boundary between them. Between two bodies with the same temperature, no heat flows. These bodies are said to be in thermal equilibrium.
Note: "... energy always transfers spontaneously as heat from a hotter body to a colder one". While that statement has a condition, this is still by far the limiting principle. Further, the only permeable paths between Earth and its inputs are radiative.
The input is energy (heat), the input is not temperature. No one who has grasped basic thermodynamics would take your argument seriously after that fundamental mistake. You seem to be just stringing together scientific jargon in a nonsensical way to reach a conclusion you like.
I didn't say heat = temperature. I stated that flux in = flux out = no net flux. For a black body at equilibrium the flux out will equal the flux in, AND the temperature of the surface at equilibrium will be equal to the radiative temperature of the input. I made the qualification that it is a black body. I also explicitly stated that if it is a gray body rather than a black body, the temperature might be different at equilibrium but the net flux will still be zero.
The comment referred to is in reference to an ideal black body. I did say that. There is no confusion here.
"And BTW I do have a Ph.D. in physics. A Nobel Laureate was the chairman of my thesis defense and I've study thermodynamics with some of the leading experts in the world. "
Wow. Ph.D. in physics, and you are somehow claiming the radiative input to Earth is equivalent to the surface of the sun? Really?
Your physics might be excellent, but I think you might want to concentrate on reading comprehension and writing skills then.
"Requiring your arguments to be in accord with basic physics is not nit picking. "
As I stated before, he probably could have worded it better. People make mistakes. But yes, in my opinion, requiring 100% technical accuracy in a layman's explanation is asking a bit much.
The Earth is not in thermal equilibrium with the Sun. If it were then it would be at the same temperature as the surface of the Sun. The only reason life can exist on Earth is because of the gradient caused by the Earth not being in thermal equilibrium with the Sun.
Hahahahaha! Nobody said the Earth was in thermal equilibrium with the Sun, for Christ's sake. What a bizarre thing to say. As I already explained, the black body will be at equilibrium with its input. Its input is obviously not direct contact with the surface of the sun, and nobody claimed that it was. The input is the solar irradiance that falls on the Earth system (globe + atmosphere). This is a very, very different thing from the surface of the sun, and nobody here implied otherwise. (Plus a little bit of "cosmic" radiation.)
The examples I gave had, as a premise, that the input was equal all around, to simplify the mental experiment. But I wasn't proposing to increase it, just to distribute it equally.
My point is that the limiting temperature is a function of the insulating properties of the Earth.
Again, a very strange thing to say for someone who is insisting on technical accuracy. No, even if what you are trying to say were correct, it would be the insulating properties of the atmosphere, not of the Earth.
If you treat the Earth as a black body you are explicitly ignoring all insulation effects.
YOUR question called for a perfect insulator. Such does not exist. As I stated before (which you seem to be ignoring): insulators are limiters of convective (and conductive) heat transfer. They don't limit radiative heat transfer. I repeat: if you want a thorough treatment of the thermodynamics of the surface of the Earth, GIVEN that the atmosphere has insulating properties, look at the other article (Latour, pdf) I linked to before.
"If you believe there is a limiting temperature to the strength of solar heating that is much less than the temperature of the surface of the Sun, please tell us what that temperature limit is. "
What does this mean? You are the only one who brought up the surface of the sun. Are you trying to imply that the Earth could somehow be heated to the temperature of the surface of the sun? Why and how? The Sun is about 93 million miles away. Do you think you could get burned, by same temperature as the surface of the burner on your stove, if you were to hold out your hand at the other end of the house? What?
I honestly do not understand what your sentence is supposed to mean, so I have no way to respond to it meaningfully. Except to say that none of this has anything to do with what I "believe". It has everything to do with science.
"Neither of the fine articles linked to in the summary nor either or your two references even mention radiative forcing."
Radiative forcing is the theoretical driver of temperature in the "Greenhouse Gas" models. If you don't know anything about the subject you are discussing, how do you presume to know what is truth and what is not?
"Interesting that even though PHP's interest has declined over time (according to the same chart), it's still more popular than Python & Ruby combined."
Not so surprising. PHP had the advantage that it was the first common server-side language to have nearly universal support. It is ridiculously easy to write a simple PHP app. The difficulties arise when you try to do something complicated.
My point is that PHP makes it really, really easy for newbies to write simple server-side scripts, for the simple reason that it's supported by Apache in most default installations, and needs nothing else.
The other thing is that its early advantage meant also that it was widely adopted, for better or worse. And when something gets that widely adopted, it's going to stick around. Because something that works, works. Heck... they're still advertising for COBOL programmers, you know? That doesn't mean I'd recommend to somebody to go learn COBOL in order to get a programming job.
Nor would I recommend PHP, except as a very basic, introductory learning course.
The evidence for greenhouse gas forcing comes from the physics of the atmosphere and extensive direct measurements of infrared properties of it from ground, aircraft, balloons and spacecraft.
This is by far the most certain part.
Funny... it's physicists and recognized experts in radiative heat transfer who are disagreeing with the concept. Since the concept involves physics and radiative heat transfer, I am rather inclined to believe them over "climate scientists".
The paper analyzes an collection of historical *data*, not a bunch of scientific papers other people have written (although each data set in the collection may have been used in a separate paper.)
You would need to look at the other works the paper references.
Here is an example from the abstract:
The amplitude of the associated changes is, however, poorly constrained (5, 6), with estimates of solar forcing spanning almost an order of magnitude (7, 8, 9). Numerical simulations tentatively indicate that a small amplitude best agrees with available temperature reconstructions (10, 11, 12, 13).
However, of you go look at the papers they reference for this information (like 7 and 10 just for example), you see that what they are actually saying is:
(A) It's hard to know what solar forcings are because the estimates span almost an order of magnitude. (This is important.) And
(B) Numerical simulations tentatively indicate that a small amplitude best agrees with available temperature reconstructions.
Okay? So far so good. Now: have a look at the paper referenced at (10). It is a paper stating that a particular climate model can simulate forcings that would account for the differences, if the sun did not.
We used a coupled climate system model to determine whether proxy-based irradiance series are capable of inducing climatic variations that resemble variations found in climate reconstructions, and if part of the previously estimated large range of past solar irradiance changes could be excluded.
(This paper also mentions that estimates of solar forcing are all over the map.) The conclusion of the paper, is that yes, they can in fact model observed climate change by using a radiative forcing model and excluding solar forcings.
So what you have, in summary, is a conclusion that because models can simulate forcings rather than the sun, the models are doing the forcings rather than the sun. Pretty much all these papers decry the fact that estimates of solar forcings are widely variable. So instead they are trying to replace it with models that are not widely variable.
In effect, they are using their conclusion as their premise. Because solar forcing estimates are all over the map, they claim their models better reflect reality because they are not all over the map.
But... is this a justified conclusion? After all: I can model wind with a fan, and get rid of all that pesky and hard-to-estimate-because-it-is-too-variable wind. But the fact that fans give more reliable results is not evidence that fans cause wind.
"What? Everything I've seen suggests it is alive and well. I probably fit in the 'skeptic' camp, but I don't see anything wrong with the concept of radiative forcing."
Then I suggest you look at the two items for which I provided links.
"Judging by the contents of the article, I would suggest that the exclusion of the maths was also to keep the article writable for non-math people."
No. As I explained above, it is intended as an explanation for the layman of the basic concepts. As such (and as is quite appropriate), the math was not introduced.
The math is contained in the pdf I linked to in the same comment. Go ahead, have a look.
If you can refute that math, I would be very interested in your arguments.
"f the authour had even a basic grounding in science he would know that "the greenhouse effect" is NOT how greenhouses retain heat. The greenhouse effect was so named in 1824 by analogy to the effects observed in a greenhouse, not because the mechanism was the same."
The author actually devoted a great deal of the article to explaining this very thing. A big part of the point here is that people are speaking of TWO different "greenhouse effects": the "radiative forcing" greenhouse effect promoted by AGW proponents, and the "real" greenhouse effect which is how greenhouses work.
The fact that you didn't get this is really... interesting.
Is "greenhouse effect" therefore a bad name for way radiation is trapped in a planet's atmosphere? Maybe, but in almost any introductory text on the subject you will see phrases like "would have a sort of greenhouse effect" that clearly show the term to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
Again, you miss the point. The article is explaining to people that the "greenhouse effect" being described in the AGW models is NOT the "greenhouse effect" that keeps real greenhouses warm.
And you ALSO missed that the entire article is intended to be an explanation for the layman. It is not supposed to be 100% technically accurate. It is trying to explain the concepts involved. It is an explanatory article; it isn't necessarily trying to prove anything.
If you want the SCIENCE behind the explanation, read the pdf I linked to in the same comment.
Slashdot Mirror
"Yes.... but I belive that's more about HONORING What you advertise."
I agree. In some cases the law says you have to honor what you advertise. But even if it doesn't, it is obvious to see that one response pisses people off and loses customers, while the other can probably just be written off as an advertising expense. (I.e., all the "free" propaganda you end up getting on Twitter and Fecebook and the like.)
"To be fair the reason people stopped commenting on YouTube is more to do with the way the broke the threading and reply system. Comments no longer appear in the order they were posted, you can't easily see new ones and replying is a chore. Basically they made conversation impossible."
I agree that this is part of the reason. But I can say that in MY case, those changes pissed me off but didn't prevent me from commenting. However, now that it's all on Google+, with extremely rare exceptions I simply don't comment anymore.
The fact is that I have multiple Google+ accounts, and I used different accounts for different things. (So much or their "one size fits all" strategy... it never worked and never will.) I still don't want activity that isn't explicitly on Google+ to be tied to Google+. Period. They were already far too intrusive before but that is over the line.
"If you think that the problem is "a few negative comments", you haven't looked at the responses posted on any news sites lately. I won't even look at the comments sections on the web site of my local metropolitan newspaper, let alone post anything: they are a rancid stew of idiocy, bigotry, and partisan attacks."
So what? Their proposed "solutions" simply aren't.
They've made it a little more difficult to post anonymously, but so what? If they want to they will find a way to make anonymous (or pseudonymous) posts anyway. It's like DRM: it mostly hurts the good guys by inconveniencing them because someone else behaved badly. That's a terrible way to make your rules.
As for YouTube: people are simply not commenting anymore. Not that it matters. I have had a pseudonymous account on Google+ for years, just as I have here on Slashdot. I just don't like to use it because Google+ is little more than a data farm for Google and its advertisers. Just like I have some Facebook accounts, which I almost never use.
Newspapers always "moderated" their Letters to the Editor section, and the guest editorials they published. Now that they're online, they think they can do that without moderators? Why?
As that other poster mentioned: this is likely more about editorial control of speech than any kind of "protection" from trolls. These policies are driving people away. It's that simple. And then they wonder why they're making less money??? Astounding.
"Then our discussion is at an end, as you do not understand how science works."
This is the most hilarious thing you've written yet. This, from somebody who proposed a thought experiment with a "perfect insulator". Which makes absolutely no scientific sense... there is no way to calculate a temperature for a perfect insulator. At least a black body, while theoretical, is amenable to mathematical treatment.
"BUT HE NEVER DID THE TEST."
You're an idiot. The test is described starting on page 23. I have been wondering about your reading comprehension from the very beginning, and now you have confirmed my suspicions.
You have repeatedly moved the goalposts all over the map, even after I have repeatedly described the points I was making. Every time it looked like you were losing ground, you just shifted tack and argued about something else. (OR -- and this is even worse -- kept arguing about the same things even after I had repeatedly explained that they had nothing to do with my original arguments.)
I'm going to say this one more time, and them I'm going away, because it has proven completely pointless to argue with you. I repeat: either you just don't get it, or you're very seriously trolling. I have no idea which, but it MUST BE one of the two.
These are the arguments I made in the beginning, and which I am sticking to:
(1) As Postma explains in his web article, the greenhouse effect is NOT the same effect that heats actual greenhouses. The latter happens by solar warming of the interior, and the warmed air is prevented from escaping. The former is presumed to work via "trapping of radiation".
I did not and do not claim that his web article is "proof" of anything, which is a concept you seemed to have trouble getting through your head. I explained this repeatedly but you kept arguing with me about it anyway.
(2) The evidence that the "radiative forcing" greenhouse gas model violates known laws of physics (specifically, the Stefan-Boltmann law) is in the Latour paper I referenced. I didn't claim that Postma proved anything and his other paper you linked to has nothing to do with my argument.
YOU have kept arguing (for whatever reason):
(A) That Postma does not actually prove the assertion that he makes in his web article. But so what? My argument wasn't relying on any "proof" by Postma anyway. Even if you were correct [but you were not] that he didn't perform the test he claimed, it has no bearing on my original argument.
(B) You claim that Latour is incorrect, but you have shown no scientific basis for that claim. You have refuted none of his math, you have refuted none of his arguments. The one article you linked to as a "refutation" actually contains the same arguments that Latour's paper refuted. Further, that Hammer article makes "intuitive" arguments rather than any rigorous science or math.
As I stated before: you have shown no real basis for your arguments. When you have tried, you have simply been incorrect.
And I refuse to waste any more time on your BS.
"There are many valid refutations for it, I even linked to one."
That's no "refutation" of Latour! As I already explained, Nova's comment about "some molecules" is a joke because the discussion is about the NET warming. And this guy Hammer's comment (again as I already explained, is no "refutation" of Latour at all! In fact it's a repetition of the very claims that Latour refuted in his article! There is no validity there whatsoever.
"The conclusions offered in Postma's web post are not supported by any evidence."
HOW MANY TIMES do you need this to be repeated before it sinks in??? The EVIDENCE is in the Latour paper. The web article by Postma was a "layman's explanation", and was not intended to provide actual evidence (much less "proof"). I have explained this to you already several times also.
"I have tried to explain to you instead the logical failings in that page. You have ignored or misrepresented my statements in an almost pathological manner."
You are so full of shit it's almost unbelievable. The evidence of the concept is in the Latour page. Your pretended "refutation" of Latour is nothing but repetitions of the arguments that Latour himself refuted. (I will ALSO point out that the "refutation" you linked to did not actually address Latour's own thermodynamic arguments... almost like that was being intentionally evaded.)
"As a last, desperate attempt to find some sign of reason in you, let's see if we can find even the most basic common ground. In the article, just before the results section, Postma finally defines the experiment he intends:"
If your "attempt to find common ground" is all about A LAYMAN'S EXPLANATION THAT IS PRETTY MUCH INCONSEQUENTIAL TO THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION, you have lost before you have begun. I explained this to you several times, as well. I have to wonder what the basis is for your failure to understand. I repeat that I don't think other readers will have this trouble understanding my repeated statements about this. (3 times now? 4?)
"Can you at least admit that in the experiment he did, he maybe, sorta, should have actually measured some temperatures inside a greenhouse?"
NO, you dimbulb, because as I have already explained to you in lurid detail, GREENHOUSES ARE NOT ACTUALLY PART OF HIS ARGUMENT. HE WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO EXPLAIN WHY THE EFFECT HE IS DISCUSSING IS NOT RELEVANT TO ACTUAL GREENHOUSES.
I have no further reason to respond to you. You have kept making the same non-arguments, even after these things have been explained to you several times.
I can only conclude that either (1) you have neither any idea what you are talking about OR the capacity to understand it, or (2) you are deliberately trolling just to piss everybody off.
"I did not elaborate further because, as I stated, I did not want to get into a semantic argument, because it does not materially affect my argument."
Which is nonsense, because that WHOLE ARGUMENT was a semantic argument, on YOUR part. I didn't want to get into one, either, and said so, but you kept making one anyway.
"What I say is that those people are incorrect."
Then why did you even bring it up? Because I, too, stated several times that they were different mechanisms. So what is the argument you're trying to make there? Your comments puzzle me.
"With regards to that exact quote you mentioned, it comes from Arrhenius's Worlds in the Making, and while I do not have the full text of the book with me perhaps some larger quotes would give you some perspective on his work"
Completely irrelevant to the part I quoted. I know what his work was about. The context of my comment was the history of the phrase "greenhouse effect", not what the body of Arrhenius' work entailed. Anybody can obtain background on that from Wikipedia. But for somebody who "doesn't want to get into an argument" over this, you sure are doing a lot of arguing.
"As you can see, as far back as your 1906 quote, "The Hothouse Effect" refers to heat rays, not convection."
No shit, Sherlock. There simply isn't (and wasn't) any argument on my part about that. THE ISSUE THAT WAS UNDER DISCUSSION (which you claim you don't want to argue about, even while you continue to argue about it) was that there is ANOTHER "greenhouse effect" (the one that heats greenhouses) that was already known, and already called that. And in fact the "radiative greenhouse effect" WAS NAMED AFTER THE OTHER ONE. That means there are TWO "greenhouse effects" known to science and history. Get it? Q.E.D. Two. Proved.
"I did not mention the second document because I had not at that time read it, because the first article was, as I say, absurd. No amount of other links will be able to redeem it because its problem is not maths or science (climate or otherwise). The problem is it is logically inconsistent in itself. To be blunt, IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE, as I explain in my earlier comment. As I stated:"
So you are claiming you don't want to read the scientific evidence for the claim, because the claim is ridiculous? There's a word for that. The word is "denial".
I very clearly told you, several times, that my evidence backing up Postma's article was in the Latour article. I don't care whether you want to look at it or not. But if you don't, you have no ground to argue from. "It doesn't make sense" (to YOU) is not a valid argument. If you want to read the scientific explanation, and you can refute THAT, then maybe I will be inclined to pay attention to your ranting.
"Regardless of the size of the greenhouse, the increased temperature (increased, that is, over the external temperature) will be due to trapped convection. The same CO2 density inside and outside the greenhouses means that the CO2 would increase the greenhouse temperature and the external temperature by the same amount."
Do you not understand that those two sentences contradict one another? In one you say that the increased temperature is due to trapped convection. In the other you say that some of it is due to radiative greenhouse effect.
Which is it? The funny thing is, even the first sentence is wrong, because in a greenhouse the heating is due to solar irradiance. That heat is then prevented from escaping by the greenhouse glass. Two different things.
Further, as I explained before: your second sentence is irrelevant to my statement because normal thermometers do not measure differences in temperature. They just measure temperature.
"which was a good guess... Well done."
As I explained above, your
Correction:
"I don't think I will be able to since I've explained it twice" should have read:
"I don't think I will be able to explain it to you any better since I've explained it already twice"
"There are two things called "The Greenhouse Effect" (false)"
It is NOT false, and I showed you a historical reference that proved it. You came up with some cockamamie theory (semantic nonsense argument) about why MAYBE it didn't mean what the plain English words very clearly do mean to any reasonable reader. No points.
"Therefore the actual greenhouse effect doesn't exist.(false)"
Show me any evidence that greenhouses are hotter than they were before (as they WOULD be, if what you say is true). If the effect is measurable, in tenths of degrees C, it should be measurable anywhere. The author claims to have done the experiment (though I have not seen the results with my own eyes... I will look for it), and I have no reason to doubt his claim. He is certainly qualified to perform such an experiment. Evidence, evidence, evidence. That's what it's all about. If you have evidence that the claim is false, show it. In the meantime, I will look for a writeup of his experiment.
"Postma attempts to jam in a different premise about "maximum solar heating". However, as I explained in my previous comment, no evidence is offered to support it. Additionally, as I have also explained twice, the extra PDF you linked to has nothing to do with the article."
There is more than one point here. In regard to the first one ("maximum solar heating"), perhaps you will remind me. I looked at your previous comments and did not find reference to it. Nor did I even find the word "maximum" in your prior comments.
As for the second point: ARE YOU DENSE? I am not accusing, I am just asking. I think this is the third time now I have explained this: the first Postma article is a "layman's explanation" about the difference between "real" greenhouse heating and the "greenhouse effect". (The one you mean... I'm not going to be drawn into a BS argument about the other thing.) THE EVIDENCE, as I have already told you more than once, is provided in the other article I linked you to. Contrary to your claim that they are unrelated, in fact the Latour article demonstrates why the "radiative" greenhouse effect is a violation of known physics. This is DIRECTLY related to the first article, and if you can't see how by now, I don't think I will be able to since I've explained it twice. Ah, heck. I'll try one more time. Should I use baby talk?
(1) Postma gives a layman's explanation about how the "greenhouse effect" does not work the way real greenhouses do. He explains that the "greenhouse effect" (the one you refer to) is based on the idea of trapping radiation, which is different from the way real greenhouses work.
(2) REMEMBER THE CONTEXT of my comment at the start of this thread. I stated that these articles refute the idea of "radiative forcing" from greenhouse gas. Postma states that there is no evidence of a measurable radiative effect in an actual greenhouse. (He might make some other claims but I'm not particularly interested in them here.)
(3) The Latour article is refuting the idea of "radiative forcing" of greenhouse gases. I already explained this connection. THERE IS CLEARLY A CONNECTION because both the first article (Postma) and the latter article (Latour) are refuting (just as I originally claimed) the idea of greenhouse radiative forcing.
Now, you can disagree all you want about how successful those refutations are, but unless you can actually REFUTE what they're saying, you don't have an argument and you're wasting my time. I have tried to be polite and explain all this civilly, but you're testing my patience.
"Even if this is a "layman's explanation", it is not a layman's explanation of the argument you are now making. I believe this brings the discussion to an end."
Holy crap! How dense can you be? AS I ALREADY EXPLAINED, the Postma article is not pretending to "prove" anything. It *IS* an explanation, though, exactl
"Sophistry does often imply intent"
But it doesn't necessarily imply intent (definitions 1 and 2). that's why it says "especially" and not "always".
"No, I am proposing that the CO2 would be aproximately the same inside and outside the greenhouse, so its effect would not be noticeable."
No, no, wait a minute. You don't get to do that. I am guessing that you are trying to say that the temperature inside and outside would go up by the same amount... but so what? A thermometer does not measure the temperature indoors compared to the temperature outdoors. It just measures temperature. In any case, this really isn't very important either.
" I am sorry it offended you so."
Nothing you wrote "offends" me. It just wasn't clear to me that you meant it as a joke.
If I may ask, why did you chose to link to the PDF document when there are (as you noted) many other HTML documents mirroring the original? Also please note that I did not "ask [you] about credibility". We are discussing these pages on content, only.
The answer to the first question is that I wanted to link to an original source, not a third-party source, and the actual original site is down. The pdf I linked to is supplied by the author himself.
I am happy to discuss content only. And pardon me if my tone has been a bit short. I've seen enough name-calling and ad-hominem over this issue to last me for yet another lifetime, and as a result I have grown a short temper. So let me try to calmly and politely clear up some possible misunderstandings:
"In any case, the original source page was up when I googled for it before I posted. As I stated, it had little to no relevence to the article you referenced. That is a report produced by the person who wrote the web article, linked to from the article. It seems to contain the conclusions listed in the "Results" section of the web article. In it is a very different experiment to the one listed on the website (that doesn't even involve measuring temperatures in a greenhouse at all!)"
That isn't the original source page. this is. But as I said, that website is down for repairs. And I understand that the relevance might not be obvious. I'm getting there.
But first, the pdf you linked to in the above comment was by the same author as the first article, which I am calling the "layman's explanation". Joe Postma is an astrophysicist. The author of the second article I linked to is Dr. Pierre Latour. Latour has spent much of his adult life designing control systems for heating and other thermodynamic processes in chemical plants, and for NASA. (Which really doesn't matter here, if we're discussing content, because the math speaks for itself. It doesn't care in the slightest who writes it down; either it is correct or it is not.)
But your article above, by Postma, and the one I linked, by Latour, are basically saying the same thing. And this is how they are related to the first article:
No, they do not mention greenhouses. In the first article, Postma was trying to describe, in layman's terms, the mechanism behind the (current popular use of the term) "greenhouse effect", and explain WHY it is NOT the effect that actually happens in greenhouses. Many people simply have not understood this. A real greenhouse is warm because it traps air that is already heated, preventing convective cooling. The "greenhouse effect" (again, the one you were referring to) supposedly works by trapping radiation. Two completely different, unrelated things. Again, the point is that he was explaining HOW they are different.
That is wh
"My scripts stop working and I have to fix everything, this is not userfriendly."
That's not a problem with Ruby, it's a problem with jruby.
"Documation is scattered and incomplete. It's something that needs to fixed if they want to get to version 4"
No, it isn't.
And if you want more documentation get your hands on the book "Programming Ruby" (often incorrectly called "the pickaxe book"), like everybody else does. It is frequently updated for the latest ruby versions. Since it's from Pragmatic Programmers, purchase once and get the (pdf) updates whenever they come out.
"Continuing her Scrooge-worthy tale, McCord adds that firing a once-valuable employee instead of finding another way for her to contribute yielded another aha! moment for Netflix: 'If we wanted only "A" players on our team, we had to be willing to let go of people whose skills no longer fit, no matter how valuable their contributions had once been.'"
Sounds like the epitome of short-term planning.
Congratulations, Netflix. Good (or not so) to know you. Really sorry to see you let it go to your head.
"I understand what the author was trying to say. I am saying his premise is entirely wrong."
And I understand what you are saying, and I (and he, and that other author I linked to) are saying that you are wrong.
"Firstly, there is only one definition of "The Greenhouse Effect", not two as claimed by the article. That is the greenhouse effect of global warming. The mechanism that keeps greenhouses warm is not called the greenhouse effect."
Yes, there are two. The effect claimed by the climate models was called the "greenhouse effect" because it was (erroneously) believed to be analogous to the mechanism that actually keeps greenhouses warm. They still claim that to this day. There isn't any mistake about calling them both "greenhouse effect". The mistake was in their faulty assumptions about what makes it work.
Arrhenius wrote about it in 1908:
"Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses."
So yes, that *IS*, just exactly, where the name came from.
"There is no attempt at sophistry, no double-meaning..."
Sophistry means "... a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning." I given what I have rad, I believe that is exactly what this is. The definition does not require it to be intentional. And even if it's not, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
"Trapped radiation (i.e. the greenhouse effect) would have minimal effect."
Correct. Thermodynamics says it would have zero effect.
But wait... the greenhouse contains increased CO2 just like the rest of the atmosphere has. Why do you claim it has no effect in a greenhouse, but has lots of effect outside a greenhouse? Are you proposing that the CO2 knows whether it is in a real greenhouse or not? Just asking because I don't get your logic here.
The thing is: one would think it would at least be measurable. But apparently there isn't any measurable effect. Even in very large greenhouses. Funny that.
As a footnote, that PDF (which appears to be a text paste of a website in order to move the contents up the trustworthyness scale [xkcd.com]) really doesn't apply to the contents of that page. Regardless, google the title of that document and you will find all the refutations you seek.
The XKCD "trustworthiness scale" is a cartoon joke. And you are asking ME about credibility?
I linked to a PDF because the website is temporarily down for repairs (you can see this clearly if you Google it, but one of the site authors explained the situation to me yesterday). You can still find it reprinted and quoted all over the place, or Google it when the site is back up. If that doesn't satisfy you, just go buy his book. Dr. Pierre Latour.
The "less than" character and the remainder of that line got deleted by Slashdot.
That should have read:
(e.g., a "gray" body with emissivity less than one).
According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the surface of your sphere (which is what is primarily absorbing and re-radiating your input) will never exceed the radiative temperature of the input. I.e., at equilibrium there is no "flux" or net heat transfer (W/m^2 * s incoming = W/m^2 * s outgoing, net flux is zero) at that surface. There are only 2 other possibilities: the temperature would go up until it outshone the rest of the universe, or it would cool down to zero. But those things simply do not happen: there must be an equilibrium (conservation of energy). And at that equilibrium flux in = flux out = no net flux at all.
In the first sentence, please note that I wrote "radiative temperature" of your input. That is, the temperature that corresponds to the sum of your input. (I did not say that radiation = temperature, or that heat flux = temperature.)
I admit that at that point, I had not explicitly pointed out that I was discussing a black body; I had assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that my reference to Stefan-Boltzmann made that much clear. But I should have stated it explicitly and I apologize for any confusion.
So to repeat what I wrote elsewhere: for a black body in a vacuum, the surface temperature will never exceed a temperature corresponding to the sum of the radiative input. (This is not the same as saying temperature = radiation or temperature = flux). As I did mention elsewhere, this is not necessarily true of a non-black body (e.g., a "gray" body with emissivity
But even so: the Latour article explains, in some detail, why none of this has any relationship to a supposed warming due to an imagined "radiative forcing" that is assumed in the greenhouse gas models. The equilibrium temperatures mentioned above will be reached without regard to "radiative forcing" or regarding the atmosphere as "insulation".
The point that the kiddie's explanation in the other article was trying to make, is that simple known physical principles already explain the temperature of a greenhouse quite adequately. The imagined "radiative" greenhouse model, then, has zero effect and so can't be said to exist, other than in some climate scientists' minds.
"The whole article rests of the supposedly logical assumption that two different effects with the same name can't both exist because they operate differently."
NO, it doesn't. The concept the article rests on is that the "radiative" greenhouse doesn't exist because the other, real, greenhouse effect is already sufficient to explain the temperature. Therefore that other "effect" has an actual effect of zero. Which means it doesn't exist.
And I will repeat: that article is just an explanation of the concept for laymen. If you want the science behind the concept, read the other article I linked to.
"Again, you are confusing heat and temperature."
No, I am not. "Temperature" is a measure of heat radiation. If you don't believe my sources, try Wikipedia:
When a path permeable only to heat is open between two bodies, energy always transfers spontaneously as heat from a hotter body to a colder one. The transfer rate depends on the thermal conductivity of the path or boundary between them. Between two bodies with the same temperature, no heat flows. These bodies are said to be in thermal equilibrium.
Note: "... energy always transfers spontaneously as heat from a hotter body to a colder one". While that statement has a condition, this is still by far the limiting principle. Further, the only permeable paths between Earth and its inputs are radiative.
The input is energy (heat), the input is not temperature. No one who has grasped basic thermodynamics would take your argument seriously after that fundamental mistake. You seem to be just stringing together scientific jargon in a nonsensical way to reach a conclusion you like.
I didn't say heat = temperature. I stated that flux in = flux out = no net flux. For a black body at equilibrium the flux out will equal the flux in, AND the temperature of the surface at equilibrium will be equal to the radiative temperature of the input. I made the qualification that it is a black body. I also explicitly stated that if it is a gray body rather than a black body, the temperature might be different at equilibrium but the net flux will still be zero.
The comment referred to is in reference to an ideal black body. I did say that. There is no confusion here.
"And BTW I do have a Ph.D. in physics. A Nobel Laureate was the chairman of my thesis defense and I've study thermodynamics with some of the leading experts in the world. "
Wow. Ph.D. in physics, and you are somehow claiming the radiative input to Earth is equivalent to the surface of the sun? Really?
Your physics might be excellent, but I think you might want to concentrate on reading comprehension and writing skills then.
"Requiring your arguments to be in accord with basic physics is not nit picking. "
As I stated before, he probably could have worded it better. People make mistakes. But yes, in my opinion, requiring 100% technical accuracy in a layman's explanation is asking a bit much.
The Earth is not in thermal equilibrium with the Sun. If it were then it would be at the same temperature as the surface of the Sun. The only reason life can exist on Earth is because of the gradient caused by the Earth not being in thermal equilibrium with the Sun.
Hahahahaha! Nobody said the Earth was in thermal equilibrium with the Sun, for Christ's sake. What a bizarre thing to say. As I already explained, the black body will be at equilibrium with its input. Its input is obviously not direct contact with the surface of the sun, and nobody claimed that it was. The input is the solar irradiance that falls on the Earth system (globe + atmosphere). This is a very, very different thing from the surface of the sun, and nobody here implied otherwise. (Plus a little bit of "cosmic" radiation.)
The examples I gave had, as a premise, that the input was equal all around, to simplify the mental experiment. But I wasn't proposing to increase it, just to distribute it equally.
My point is that the limiting temperature is a function of the insulating properties of the Earth.
Again, a very strange thing to say for someone who is insisting on technical accuracy. No, even if what you are trying to say were correct, it would be the insulating properties of the atmosphere, not of the Earth.
If you treat the Earth as a black body you are explicitly ignoring all insulation effects.
YOUR question called for a perfect insulator. Such does not exist. As I stated before (which you seem to be ignoring): insulators are limiters of convective (and conductive) heat transfer. They don't limit radiative heat transfer. I repeat: if you want a thorough treatment of the thermodynamics of the surface of the Earth, GIVEN that the atmosphere has insulating properties, look at the other article (Latour, pdf) I linked to before.
"If you believe there is a limiting temperature to the strength of solar heating that is much less than the temperature of the surface of the Sun, please tell us what that temperature limit is. "
What does this mean? You are the only one who brought up the surface of the sun. Are you trying to imply that the Earth could somehow be heated to the temperature of the surface of the sun? Why and how? The Sun is about 93 million miles away. Do you think you could get burned, by same temperature as the surface of the burner on your stove, if you were to hold out your hand at the other end of the house? What?
I honestly do not understand what your sentence is supposed to mean, so I have no way to respond to it meaningfully. Except to say that none of this has anything to do with what I "believe". It has everything to do with science.
"Neither of the fine articles linked to in the summary nor either or your two references even mention radiative forcing."
Radiative forcing is the theoretical driver of temperature in the "Greenhouse Gas" models. If you don't know anything about the subject you are discussing, how do you presume to know what is truth and what is not?
"Interesting that even though PHP's interest has declined over time (according to the same chart), it's still more popular than Python & Ruby combined."
Not so surprising. PHP had the advantage that it was the first common server-side language to have nearly universal support. It is ridiculously easy to write a simple PHP app. The difficulties arise when you try to do something complicated.
My point is that PHP makes it really, really easy for newbies to write simple server-side scripts, for the simple reason that it's supported by Apache in most default installations, and needs nothing else.
The other thing is that its early advantage meant also that it was widely adopted, for better or worse. And when something gets that widely adopted, it's going to stick around. Because something that works, works. Heck... they're still advertising for COBOL programmers, you know? That doesn't mean I'd recommend to somebody to go learn COBOL in order to get a programming job.
Nor would I recommend PHP, except as a very basic, introductory learning course.
The evidence for greenhouse gas forcing comes from the physics of the atmosphere and extensive direct measurements of infrared properties of it from ground, aircraft, balloons and spacecraft.
This is by far the most certain part.
Funny... it's physicists and recognized experts in radiative heat transfer who are disagreeing with the concept. Since the concept involves physics and radiative heat transfer, I am rather inclined to believe them over "climate scientists".
The paper analyzes an collection of historical *data*, not a bunch of scientific papers other people have written (although each data set in the collection may have been used in a separate paper.)
You would need to look at the other works the paper references. Here is an example from the abstract:
The amplitude of the associated changes is, however, poorly constrained (5, 6), with estimates of solar forcing spanning almost an order of magnitude (7, 8, 9). Numerical simulations tentatively indicate that a small amplitude best agrees with available temperature reconstructions (10, 11, 12, 13).
However, of you go look at the papers they reference for this information (like 7 and 10 just for example), you see that what they are actually saying is:
(A) It's hard to know what solar forcings are because the estimates span almost an order of magnitude. (This is important.) And
(B) Numerical simulations tentatively indicate that a small amplitude best agrees with available temperature reconstructions.
Okay? So far so good. Now: have a look at the paper referenced at (10). It is a paper stating that a particular climate model can simulate forcings that would account for the differences, if the sun did not.
We used a coupled climate system model to determine whether proxy-based irradiance series are capable of inducing climatic variations that resemble variations found in climate reconstructions, and if part of the previously estimated large range of past solar irradiance changes could be excluded.
(This paper also mentions that estimates of solar forcing are all over the map.) The conclusion of the paper, is that yes, they can in fact model observed climate change by using a radiative forcing model and excluding solar forcings.
So what you have, in summary, is a conclusion that because models can simulate forcings rather than the sun, the models are doing the forcings rather than the sun. Pretty much all these papers decry the fact that estimates of solar forcings are widely variable. So instead they are trying to replace it with models that are not widely variable.
In effect, they are using their conclusion as their premise. Because solar forcing estimates are all over the map, they claim their models better reflect reality because they are not all over the map.
But... is this a justified conclusion? After all: I can model wind with a fan, and get rid of all that pesky and hard-to-estimate-because-it-is-too-variable wind. But the fact that fans give more reliable results is not evidence that fans cause wind.
"What? Everything I've seen suggests it is alive and well. I probably fit in the 'skeptic' camp, but I don't see anything wrong with the concept of radiative forcing."
Then I suggest you look at the two items for which I provided links.
"Judging by the contents of the article, I would suggest that the exclusion of the maths was also to keep the article writable for non-math people."
No. As I explained above, it is intended as an explanation for the layman of the basic concepts. As such (and as is quite appropriate), the math was not introduced.
The math is contained in the pdf I linked to in the same comment. Go ahead, have a look.
If you can refute that math, I would be very interested in your arguments.
"your citation below was "successfully challenged" below. Any further evidence?"
No. It was challenged. But it was by no means, even remotely, "successfully" challenged.
"f the authour had even a basic grounding in science he would know that "the greenhouse effect" is NOT how greenhouses retain heat. The greenhouse effect was so named in 1824 by analogy to the effects observed in a greenhouse, not because the mechanism was the same."
The author actually devoted a great deal of the article to explaining this very thing. A big part of the point here is that people are speaking of TWO different "greenhouse effects": the "radiative forcing" greenhouse effect promoted by AGW proponents, and the "real" greenhouse effect which is how greenhouses work.
The fact that you didn't get this is really... interesting.
Is "greenhouse effect" therefore a bad name for way radiation is trapped in a planet's atmosphere? Maybe, but in almost any introductory text on the subject you will see phrases like "would have a sort of greenhouse effect" that clearly show the term to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
Again, you miss the point. The article is explaining to people that the "greenhouse effect" being described in the AGW models is NOT the "greenhouse effect" that keeps real greenhouses warm.
And you ALSO missed that the entire article is intended to be an explanation for the layman. It is not supposed to be 100% technically accurate. It is trying to explain the concepts involved. It is an explanatory article; it isn't necessarily trying to prove anything.
If you want the SCIENCE behind the explanation, read the pdf I linked to in the same comment.