" Latour claims cooler bodies cannot affect warmer bodies, which Newton proved wrong centuries ago."
NOW who's overgeneralizing? Latour's claims are very specific; I see nowhere any claim that "cooler bodies cannot effect warmer bodies".
"A heat source that has all its heat reflected back at it will get hotter, regardless of the temperature of the reflector (first law of thermodynamics; energy doesn't just disappear). Not according to Latour."
Man. Really? And you claim that *I* am not understanding this? I mean regardless of bringing up the space-blanket straw-man in the first place.
"If you can't even see that much, then it's pointless discussing this further."
It is obviously pointless to discuss further, since you have repeatedly shown that you have failed to understand that this whole discussion is about "back radiation". Reflectors need not apply.
Coin money is issued by the Government, not the Fed. So a $1 coin (no matter what it is made of or how it is backed), is not "borrowed" from the Fed and has no interest.
"The net result is still an overall transfer of energy from the warmer body to the cooler, of course."
Which is exactly what I stated. So how does this indicate that I don't know what's going on???
"The point is, greenhouse gases are slowing the Earth's rate of cooling, even though they are cooler than the Earth itself."
No, the point is that you have to show this, rather than merely state it.
I have said this before, not just once but many times now: where is your actual refutation? Where is the math, or a disproval of Latour's math? Until you provide at least one of those, you are simply blowing hot air.
"A cool body cannot transfer energy to a warm body without also absorbing energy from the warm body. Likewise, a warm body transferring energy to a cool body will also absorb some energy from it."
Duh. With the net result exactly as Latour described.
I don't know where you got the idea that I was trying to say individual photons, for example, can't be absorbed. But the net result, in the long run, is the same: the warmer body does not absorb energy from the cooler.
This whole discussion has been about so-called "back radiation" from cooler gases to the warmer surface of the Earth. If you want to jerk the whole damned thing out of context AND THEN argue about semantics... well, what does that say about you?
"I just want it pointed out for the record that nobody is ignoring your claims here, and in fact plenty of people have refuted them. Including myself. Fact: nowhere in the Stefan-Boltzmann law or any other law of thermodynamics does it state that warmer bodies cannot absorb radiation from cooler bodies. Deal with it."
Well, see, there was this guy named Kirchhoff, who rather did show that under the specified circumstances, it just ain't gonna happen. You might want to look him up.
And by the way: we both know why you won't identify yourself. Just keep in mind that it makes you even more of a creep than I thought you were before. And I am keeping records.
"One of us actually has a degree in thermodynamics, and one of us is lying, and we both know who it is. But I'm perfectly willing to let you keep embarrassing yourself in front of your betters."
Let's examine the facts:
[1] One of us may have a degree in thermodynamics; the other was obviously joking.
[2] The one who MIGHT have such a degree does not possess testicles large enough to identify himself, so we shall never know.
[3] I can claim a pass on the identification thing, since I have been using this same Nom de Plume on Slashdot for many years now.
In summary: if you want any credibility, don't post as AC. As far as the rest of us know, your degree is actually in cartoon illustration.
I attempted to post his math here but Slashdot would not allow it (lines too short).
I respectfully suggest, then, that you actually go read the fucking article, and refute the author there, rather than trying to argue with me, since I am not him.
"If you're claiming that warmer objects cannot absorb energy from cooler objects, please quote the actual wording of the physical law you believe prevents this. Not just the name of that law, but the specific wording. A Wikipedia link to that wording would also enlighten us all, I'm sure."
Why are you asking ME to argue with you about this? Why aren't you arguing with the author directly? As I stated way back in the beginning: I am not making these claims myself. I am merely challenging others to refute them.
Not even remotely the same thing. And which you have not done, by the way.
"... you're still confusing 'giving warmth to' with 'making hotter'. Absorbing energy does not necessarily result in an increase in temperature - not if the object is radiating energy faster than it absorbs it."
Hahahahahahahahaha.
No shit, Sherlock. Now show us all how that works in the particular case of "back-radiation" from atmospheric gases.
As for the rest of your comment: as I said before, show us the math.
"Nice way to completely ignore the entire second paragraph,..."
When the first paragraph is utter nonsense, do you really expect people to read your second? Honestly?
THIS IS NOT ABOUT RADIATION, as anybody with half a brain who has read both articles should plainly see. This is about absorption. And I think explaining that to you twice is quite enough. I mean, in addition to the original articles which should have made that explanation unnecessary.
"Warmer objects ARE REQUIRED BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS to absorb radiation from ANY source, with some quantum mechanically determined probability that depends only on the momentum of the radiation and other properties of the absorbing atom."
Holy shit. I have to say that again because I have just been amazed over the last couple of days at the stupid things smart people have been willing to say to defend AGW.
If you think about it -- I won't pretend to be rigorous about it here on Slashdot, it should be obvious to any Dilbert reader -- your statement violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, not just the Second, as Spencer's argument does. If cool things can give their warmth to hot things... well, I'd better build a fire in the fireplace to cool this place down.
I never claimed they were. Holy crap. Do people on Slashdot even look at links anymore? Okay, look. Here they are again. The articles this whole discussion is about:
"Alright, if you (or someone whose work you are reading) is so convinced that the models would be better without back-radiation, then go ahead and improve the model. Otherwise you are just armchair quarterbacking."
Haha. Once again, I am astounded. Do you even understand your own argument? By analogy, you are effectively saying "Well, okay, so we can disprove the existence of phlogiston... but that means you need to dream up something else to take its place."
Just no, man. Not even close. Disproof is disproof. It does not require a new proof in its place.
"I think every mirror ever used in a high-energy laser experiment would disagree with you - *reflection* (such as from clouds) is a highly localized surface phenomena that does not require an ambient energy level sufficient to radiate."
I really have to say -- for at least the third time in this discussion -- "My God". You have really misunderstood Dr. Latour's argument this much? REALLY? You haven't figured out that the whole thing is not about reflection, but absorption, and at particular energy levels?
I mean, REALLY? You haven't figured that out, even though it's stated in plain words?
I haven't written "Holy Crap" so many times in years.
"Also, infrared lasers couldn't heat things to the point that they give off visible light. Microwaves wouldn't be able to heat things."
Hahaha. Really?
What a joke. You are referring to things that have higher radiative energy (microwaves, for example) than the things they are heating. This is exactly the issue Latour is addressing. You are arguing for him.
And that was in reference to microwaves, but in regard to your infrared comment, are you really serious? Guess what? The way most lasers even WORK are a refutation of your argument.
So let's be blunt about it, shall we? Energy moves from higher levels to lower levels.
If you can disprove that, I will gladly buck for your Nobel Prize.
"Earth is not an ideal "black body", SB applies ONLY to ideal black bodies. Just to be sure you heard it, here it is again... "
Holy shit. Again. And you are pretending to lecture me?
No, Earth is not a black body. That is nearly the whole of Latour's argument. And the emissivity of CO2 is very close to 0.002. Very, very far from a black body.
You are really saying that you have misunderstood him (and me) that thoroughly? Honestly? Holy crap.
And if you are claiming that a REAL refutation is in the comments, surely you don't mind pointing out which one you think it is?
"Your linked articles are essentially a strawman, dissecting a poorly contrived and oversimplified example, since "back radiation" (or as AGW scientists call it, "downwelling radiation") isn't so much causing an increase in the temperature of the planet as it is decreasing the cooling rate of the planet. Radiation that would normally have gone through the troposphere into the stratosphere/space has to bounce around more in the lower layers of the atmosphere and surface, during which period there is more chance that it will be siphoned off by other heat transfer mechanisms while it is busy exciting electrons. This is why the stratosphere is cooling as the lower troposphere and surface warm due to increased opacity, as GHGs are added."
Sir... with an alias like "skids" I am assuming you are a sir... it is not enough to say this. This is what I have had to keep saying here. People SAID the Earth was the center of the Universe. It even seemed obvious to them. But they could not SHOW that it was actually true.
People here keep SAYING that Latour is wrong... but not one of them -- not even one, and not you -- has even attempted to show how he is actually wrong. And until they do, I will continue to accept what appears to be very solid and legitimate math and science.
Slashdot Mirror
No shit, Sherlock?
That's not the same as what GP said.
" Latour claims cooler bodies cannot affect warmer bodies, which Newton proved wrong centuries ago."
NOW who's overgeneralizing? Latour's claims are very specific; I see nowhere any claim that "cooler bodies cannot effect warmer bodies".
"A heat source that has all its heat reflected back at it will get hotter, regardless of the temperature of the reflector (first law of thermodynamics; energy doesn't just disappear). Not according to Latour."
Man. Really? And you claim that *I* am not understanding this? I mean regardless of bringing up the space-blanket straw-man in the first place.
"If you can't even see that much, then it's pointless discussing this further."
It is obviously pointless to discuss further, since you have repeatedly shown that you have failed to understand that this whole discussion is about "back radiation". Reflectors need not apply.
Another big issue that many haven't considered:
Coin money is issued by the Government, not the Fed. So a $1 coin (no matter what it is made of or how it is backed), is not "borrowed" from the Fed and has no interest.
"The net result is still an overall transfer of energy from the warmer body to the cooler, of course."
Which is exactly what I stated. So how does this indicate that I don't know what's going on???
"The point is, greenhouse gases are slowing the Earth's rate of cooling, even though they are cooler than the Earth itself."
No, the point is that you have to show this, rather than merely state it.
I have said this before, not just once but many times now: where is your actual refutation? Where is the math, or a disproval of Latour's math? Until you provide at least one of those, you are simply blowing hot air.
This is known as the "Pournelle Solution". See Yet Another Modest Proposal, by Larry Niven.
It is named after Jerry Pournelle's proposed solution for radioactive waste disposal. It works like this:
[1] Find an historically (and consistently) arid region.
[2] Pile up your radioactive waste in the middle,
[3] build a fence around it, say maybe 100 miles radius. Then
[4] put signs on the fence, in several languages, that say "If you cross this fence, you will die."
[5] End of problem.
I may not have gotten Jerry's words exactly right, but this is the gist of his suggestion.
"A cool body cannot transfer energy to a warm body without also absorbing energy from the warm body. Likewise, a warm body transferring energy to a cool body will also absorb some energy from it."
Duh. With the net result exactly as Latour described.
I don't know where you got the idea that I was trying to say individual photons, for example, can't be absorbed. But the net result, in the long run, is the same: the warmer body does not absorb energy from the cooler.
This whole discussion has been about so-called "back radiation" from cooler gases to the warmer surface of the Earth. If you want to jerk the whole damned thing out of context AND THEN argue about semantics... well, what does that say about you?
Let's think about that word "reflection" again.
"I just want it pointed out for the record that nobody is ignoring your claims here, and in fact plenty of people have refuted them. Including myself. Fact: nowhere in the Stefan-Boltzmann law or any other law of thermodynamics does it state that warmer bodies cannot absorb radiation from cooler bodies. Deal with it."
Well, see, there was this guy named Kirchhoff, who rather did show that under the specified circumstances, it just ain't gonna happen. You might want to look him up.
And by the way: we both know why you won't identify yourself. Just keep in mind that it makes you even more of a creep than I thought you were before. And I am keeping records.
"One of us actually has a degree in thermodynamics, and one of us is lying, and we both know who it is. But I'm perfectly willing to let you keep embarrassing yourself in front of your betters."
Let's examine the facts:
[1] One of us may have a degree in thermodynamics; the other was obviously joking.
[2] The one who MIGHT have such a degree does not possess testicles large enough to identify himself, so we shall never know.
[3] I can claim a pass on the identification thing, since I have been using this same Nom de Plume on Slashdot for many years now.
In summary: if you want any credibility, don't post as AC. As far as the rest of us know, your degree is actually in cartoon illustration.
I attempted to post his math here but Slashdot would not allow it (lines too short).
I respectfully suggest, then, that you actually go read the fucking article , and refute the author there, rather than trying to argue with me, since I am not him.
Good luck with that.
"If you're claiming that warmer objects cannot absorb energy from cooler objects, please quote the actual wording of the physical law you believe prevents this. Not just the name of that law, but the specific wording. A Wikipedia link to that wording would also enlighten us all, I'm sure."
Why are you asking ME to argue with you about this? Why aren't you arguing with the author directly? As I stated way back in the beginning: I am not making these claims myself. I am merely challenging others to refute them.
Not even remotely the same thing. And which you have not done, by the way.
"... you're still confusing 'giving warmth to' with 'making hotter'. Absorbing energy does not necessarily result in an increase in temperature - not if the object is radiating energy faster than it absorbs it."
Hahahahahahahahaha.
No shit, Sherlock. Now show us all how that works in the particular case of "back-radiation" from atmospheric gases.
As for the rest of your comment: as I said before, show us the math.
The issue you MISSED, Dvorkin, is that Latour's argument is based on the fact that neither Earth, or CO2, are black bodies.
Get it???
"Nice way to completely ignore the entire second paragraph,..."
When the first paragraph is utter nonsense, do you really expect people to read your second? Honestly?
THIS IS NOT ABOUT RADIATION, as anybody with half a brain who has read both articles should plainly see. This is about absorption. And I think explaining that to you twice is quite enough. I mean, in addition to the original articles which should have made that explanation unnecessary.
High weirdness here. I will ask you POLITELY to go away, before I contact the authorities.
" I don't think they give Nobel prizes for duplicating previous work - see Ludwig Boltzmann, etc."
Boltzmann was one of those I was indirectly addressing. You missed that, eh? Did you even read the original articles?
"Warmer objects ARE REQUIRED BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS to absorb radiation from ANY source, with some quantum mechanically determined probability that depends only on the momentum of the radiation and other properties of the absorbing atom."
Holy shit. I have to say that again because I have just been amazed over the last couple of days at the stupid things smart people have been willing to say to defend AGW.
If you think about it -- I won't pretend to be rigorous about it here on Slashdot, it should be obvious to any Dilbert reader -- your statement violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, not just the Second, as Spencer's argument does. If cool things can give their warmth to hot things... well, I'd better build a fire in the fireplace to cool this place down.
"They aren't mutually exclusive."
I never claimed they were. Holy crap. Do people on Slashdot even look at links anymore? Okay, look. Here they are again. The articles this whole discussion is about:
This one by Spencer.
And this rebuttal by Latour.
Got it? If you have a problem with either argument, please make them to the appropriate people, okay? Rather than me. I am just a reporter here.
"Alright, if you (or someone whose work you are reading) is so convinced that the models would be better without back-radiation, then go ahead and improve the model. Otherwise you are just armchair quarterbacking."
Haha. Once again, I am astounded. Do you even understand your own argument? By analogy, you are effectively saying "Well, okay, so we can disprove the existence of phlogiston... but that means you need to dream up something else to take its place."
Just no, man. Not even close. Disproof is disproof. It does not require a new proof in its place.
So...
let's see the math.
Come on, man. Money where the mouth is, and all that.
"I think every mirror ever used in a high-energy laser experiment would disagree with you - *reflection* (such as from clouds) is a highly localized surface phenomena that does not require an ambient energy level sufficient to radiate."
I really have to say -- for at least the third time in this discussion -- "My God". You have really misunderstood Dr. Latour's argument this much? REALLY? You haven't figured out that the whole thing is not about reflection, but absorption, and at particular energy levels?
I mean, REALLY? You haven't figured that out, even though it's stated in plain words?
I haven't written "Holy Crap" so many times in years.
"Also, infrared lasers couldn't heat things to the point that they give off visible light. Microwaves wouldn't be able to heat things."
Hahaha. Really?
What a joke. You are referring to things that have higher radiative energy (microwaves, for example) than the things they are heating. This is exactly the issue Latour is addressing. You are arguing for him.
And that was in reference to microwaves, but in regard to your infrared comment, are you really serious? Guess what? The way most lasers even WORK are a refutation of your argument.
So let's be blunt about it, shall we? Energy moves from higher levels to lower levels.
If you can disprove that, I will gladly buck for your Nobel Prize.
"You're referencing an online argument by a very stubborn person?"
Considering that those articles are the entire subject being discussed here, I would say yes.
" (Hint: any body can transfer energy to any other body through radiation, as long as nothing blocks it.)"
Thank you. You have just demonstrated your ignorance of thermodynamics to the world.
We all hope that makes it a happier place.
"Earth is not an ideal "black body", SB applies ONLY to ideal black bodies. Just to be sure you heard it, here it is again... "
Holy shit. Again. And you are pretending to lecture me?
No, Earth is not a black body. That is nearly the whole of Latour's argument. And the emissivity of CO2 is very close to 0.002. Very, very far from a black body.
You are really saying that you have misunderstood him (and me) that thoroughly? Honestly? Holy crap.
And if you are claiming that a REAL refutation is in the comments, surely you don't mind pointing out which one you think it is?
"Your linked articles are essentially a strawman, dissecting a poorly contrived and oversimplified example, since "back radiation" (or as AGW scientists call it, "downwelling radiation") isn't so much causing an increase in the temperature of the planet as it is decreasing the cooling rate of the planet. Radiation that would normally have gone through the troposphere into the stratosphere/space has to bounce around more in the lower layers of the atmosphere and surface, during which period there is more chance that it will be siphoned off by other heat transfer mechanisms while it is busy exciting electrons. This is why the stratosphere is cooling as the lower troposphere and surface warm due to increased opacity, as GHGs are added."
Sir... with an alias like "skids" I am assuming you are a sir... it is not enough to say this. This is what I have had to keep saying here. People SAID the Earth was the center of the Universe. It even seemed obvious to them. But they could not SHOW that it was actually true.
People here keep SAYING that Latour is wrong... but not one of them -- not even one, and not you -- has even attempted to show how he is actually wrong. And until they do, I will continue to accept what appears to be very solid and legitimate math and science.
It is that simple.